U. S.

D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n

State Education Indicators

With a Focus on Title I: 2002-03


State Education Indicators

With a Focus on Title I
2002-03
By
Andra Williams
Rolf K. Blank
Carla Toye
Adam Petermann
Council of Chief State School Officers
Washington, D.C.

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
2007


 This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0040-0001. The project monitors were Jessica Hausman and Adrienne
Hosek in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is
intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings
Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Doug Mesecar
Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg
Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin
Director

July 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation
should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State Education Indicators With a
Focus on Title I, 2002-03, Washington, D.C., 2007.

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s
Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or (202) 260-0818.

ii
 Contents
Tables.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................iv
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ix
National Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
State Profiles . ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Alabama ...........................................12 Indiana .............................................40 Nevada .............................................68 South Dakota ................................... 96
Alaska ..............................................14 Iowa .................................................42 New Hampshire ................................70 Tennessee ........................................ 98
Arizona .............................................16 Kansas . ............................................44 New Jersey .......................................72 Texas ............................................. 100
Arkansas . .........................................18 Kentucky ...........................................46 New Mexico . ....................................74 Utah .............................................. 102
California . ........................................20 Louisiana ..........................................48 New York ..........................................76 Vermont . ....................................... 104
Colorado . .........................................22 Maine ...............................................50 North Carolina ..................................78 Virginia .......................................... 106
Connecticut ......................................24 Maryland ..........................................52 North Dakota ....................................80 Washington ................................... 108
Delaware ..........................................26 Massachusetts ..................................54 Ohio .................................................82 West Virginia . ................................ 110
District of Columbia ..........................28 Michigan ..........................................56 Oklahoma .........................................84 Wisconsin ...................................... 112
Florida ..............................................30 Minnesota ........................................58 Oregon .............................................86 Wyoming ....................................... 114
Georgia ............................................32 Mississippi ........................................60 Pennsylvania .....................................88
Hawaii ..............................................34 Missouri . ..........................................62 Puerto Rico .......................................90
Idaho ................................................36 Montana . .........................................64 Rhode Island . ...................................92
Illinois . .............................................38 Nebraska ..........................................66 South Carolina ..................................94
Appendixes
Appendix A: Sources . .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix B: State Definitions of Proficient ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 121
Appendix C: National Assessment of Educational Progress—Definitions and Further Information . ......................................................................................................... 127

iii
 Tables
Table 1: State Assessments, Number of Student Proficiency Levels, and Years of Consistent Assessment Data, 2002-03 . ...................................................................... 2
Table 2: Percentage of Students Achieving At or Above Each State’s Proficient Level, by Grade Level, in Reading or Language Arts and Mathematics, 2002-03 .......... 4
Table 3: Trends in the Percentage of Students Achieving At or Above Each State’s Proficient Level, in Elementary Reading or Language Arts and in Middle Grades
Mathematics, 1996 to 2003.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 4: Links to State Report Cards for More Information on Student Accountability and Assessment ................................................................................................. 8

iv
 Introduction
Report Objectives and Design proving America’s Schools Act (IASA), required After two consecutive years of missing AYP, schools
states to monitor the progress of schools in improving are required to notify parents that in most cases they
State Education Indicators With a Focus on
the achievement only of students participating in may choose to enroll their child in another public
Title I 2002-03 is the eighth in a series of reports
Title I, Part A, (i.e, educationally needy students in school in the district, thereby exercising their right
designed to provide (1) consistent, reliable indicators
schools with high concentrations of students from to public school choice under NCLB. If an identi-
to allow analysis of trends for each state over time,
low income families). States used assessments in fied school misses AYP for a third year, the district is
(2) high data quality for comparability from state
reading or language arts and mathematics aligned required to provide supplemental educational services
to state, and (3) accessible indicator formats aimed
to student learning standards to measure student to students from low income families in the school,
toward facilitating use by a variety of audiences.
performance in one grade each in elementary, middle, which may include tutoring or other after-school
Since its inception, the report has provided two-page
and high school, and reported the results to the pub- academic programming provided by public or private
state profiles that report the same indicators for each
lic. organizations or firms.
state. This 2002-03 report, the first to reflect the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
NCLB strengthens the requirements from IASA by After a fourth year of missing AYP, a school is subject
of 2001, has been reorganized to better reflect the
requiring states to develop an integrated account- to corrective action, where the district implements
requirements of the law, adding indicators and trends
ability system, which combines testing all students in at least one statutorily required strategy to improve
on finances, demographics, staff, and accountability,
grades 3-8 and one grade in the 10-12 grade span in student learning, such as introducing new curricula
and expanding the trends for assessment data. A full
reading or language arts and mathematics by 2005- or replacing staff. After a fifth year of missing AYP,
explanation of these indicators can be found below.
06 and using an “other academic indicator” to pro- schools begin planning for restructuring and after a
vide additional information about student progress. sixth year they implement their restructuring plan,
Title I, Part A
For the latter, NCLB requires the use of graduation which may include replacing all or most of the staff,
Title I, Part A, is the largest single grant program of rate for high schools but allows states flexibility to reopening the school as a charter school, or other
the U.S. Department of Education, authorized under use a number of other measures for elementary and major reforms. If at any point a school under review
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act middle schools. Data on assessment results and the makes AYP for two consecutive years, it exits im-
(ESEA). For over 40 years, it has provided funds to other academic indicators are reported for all stu- provement status and is no longer subject to these
states, the District of Columbia, and the outlying dents in a school and by student subgroups, including consequences. The school, however, must continue to
territories for additional educational support for the race or ethnicity, poverty, disability status, English demonstrate progress and consistently meet annual
neediest children. In 2004, the $14 billion program language proficiency, gender and migrant status. performance targets or it will reenter the first stage of
served over 15 million students in nearly all school improvement after missing AYP for two consecutive
districts and nearly half of all public schools. States must set annual targets for school and district years.
performance that lead all students to proficiency on
NCLB Accountability Requirements state reading and mathematics assessments by the It is important to note that each state establishes
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do not the rules for schools to make AYP: the state designs
which reauthorized the ESEA, requires all schools, make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goal its statewide assessment system, defines proficiency
districts and states to work toward the goal of all for two consecutive years are identified as needing levels for students and designates the other academic
students meeting state-defined levels of proficiency in improvement and are subject to increasing levels of indicator for schools and districts. Assessments and
reading or language arts and math by 2014. Previous interventions designed to improve performance and accountability systems are not necessarily comparable
reauthorizations of the bill, such as the 1994 Im- increase options for students and parents. state-to-state.


 Guide to State Indicator Profiles Students in core academic subjects had to be “highly quali-
The state profiles in this report contain key indicators An important aspect of the accountability system fied.” NCLB provides a framework by which states
for K-12 public education. They focus on the status requirements under NCLB is the disaggregation of label teachers as “highly qualified.” Because the
of each indicator as of the 2002-03 school year, the student achievement results by student subgroup. law requires each state to create its own rubric for
first year of the implementation of NCLB, and many This section of the profile reports student enroll- evaluating experienced teachers, these indictors are
indicators also include data for a baseline year for the ment across grades, as well as trends in the student not comparable across states.
purpose of analyzing trends over time. The sources populations in each state, particularly characteristics
section at the end of the publication provides more of students by race or ethnicity, poverty, disability Outcomes
detailed information and explanations for the indica- status, English language proficiency, and migrant sta- Three measures of student outcomes are reported
tors. The indicators in each state profile are organized tus. The bar graph showing counts of public schools in the national and state profiles: the high school
into seven categories: by the percentage of students eligible for the free “event” dropout rate; the averaged freshman gradu-
or reduced-price lunch program (i.e., students from ation rate, a calculation of high school graduation
Districts and Schools low-income families) is useful for reviewing the disag- rates; and the college-going rate.
The indicators in this category provide a statewide gregated student achievement results reported on the
picture of characteristics of the public K-12 school second page of each profile. Data on students in each The high school dropout rate is based on the CCD
system as of 2002-03, including the number of dis- state are collected from several sources, including “event rate” that reports the annual percent of
tricts, public schools, and charter schools in the state. NCES, program offices within the U. S. Department of students in grades 9-12 that drop out of school.
A comparison number from 1993-94 is provided to Education, and the National Assessment of Educa- This measure may underestimate the actual number
give a picture of how the state’s school systems have tional Progress (NAEP). of students that drop out of high school, because it
changed over time, and to reflect change since the indicates only the percent of students that dropped
1994 ESEA reauthorization. These data are from the Staff out of high school within a single year and not the
Common Core of Data (CCD), collected from state This section provides information about educators, cumulative dropout rate for each student cohort over
departments of education by the National Center for including the number of teachers and non-teach- a lifetime.
Education Statistics (NCES). ing staff in each state from data collected by NCES
through the CCD. A third data element, the percent- An alternate estimate of student attrition, the aver-
Finances age of teachers with a major in the main subject aged freshman graduation rate, is reported for com-
taught, grades 7-12, is reported from results of the parison purposes. The indicator is a new calculation
Four financial data elements are included in this from NCES. It uses aggregate student enrollment data
report: total current expenditures, including in- Schools and Staffing Survey, a periodic sample survey
of teachers and schools conducted by NCES. to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class
structional, noninstructional, and support; per-pupil and aggregate counts of the number of regular di-
expenditures; sources of funding; and Title I, Part A, plomas awarded four years later. While the averaged
allocation. These figures provide a picture of school The final figure in this section, percentage of core
courses taught by highly qualified teachers, 2002- freshman graduation rate is the best measure of the
finances for each state, demonstrating how funding is graduation rate that is currently available, it has sev-
distributed, as well as the relationship between fed- 03, was reported by states through the Consoli-
dated State Performance Report. In 2002-03, NCLB eral flaws that affect its accuracy and reliability. The
eral funding allocations and state and local resources. calculation for each state is based on local definitions
Data are collected from CCD surveys through NCES required that all newly hired teachers in assignments
supported with Title I, Part A, funds be “highly of what constitutes a high school diploma, which vary
and the Budget Office of the U. S. Department of considerably. For example, this definition may or may
Education. qualified,” and by 2005-06 all teachers teaching

vi

not include students graduating with a GED or other determinations, and the performance levels used to Student Achievement 2002-03
alternative credential. The graduation rate also does report student achievement. The second column on page 2 of the profile includes
not take into account student mobility across districts state student assessment information, including the
or states, or into or out of private schools, nor does it This section provides information on accountability name of the assessment, the subject assessed, and
include students who repeated a grade in high school goals for one grade in elementary, middle, and high disaggregated results for one grade in elementary,
or those who graduated early. Another outcome pro- school (the same as the assessment data reported middle, and high school. Due to limited space, the
vided is the college-going rate, which measures the in the second column of the second page of each profile does not include all disaggregated scores
percent of high school graduates in a state enrolled in profile) in reading or language arts (or the state’s and grades assessed. However, NCLB requires the
any postsecondary education institution in the fall of equivalent) and mathematics. The annual measurable assessment of all students in grades 3-8 and once in
the following school year, as reported by NCES. objective (AMO) target provides an indication of how the 10-12 grade span in reading or language arts and
many students in each student group must perform at mathematics by the 2005-06 school year, and that
Finally, this section also includes test results from the or above the state-defined proficient level for 2002- these assessment results be reported for state-de-
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 03 in order to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) fined performance levels by the following categories:
in reading and mathematics, which are comparable on the state’s trajectory toward 100 percent profi- all students and students disaggregated by economic
across states. Prior to the passage of NCLB, state ciency by 2013-14. The starting point of the trajec- disadvantage, limited English proficiency, disability,
participation in NAEP was voluntary and reading and tory for most states was 2001-02, and the target for migrant status, gender, and race or ethnicity. (While
mathematics tests were given in four-year cycles. 2002-03 is also displayed. The latter number is useful reporting by migrant status and gender is required by
Under NCLB, each state is now required to partici- for reviewing the achievement information presented NCLB, these two indicators are not used in deter-
pate in each two-year cycle of the NAEP, starting with in the second column on the second page. mining AYP.) In the 2002-03 school year, all states
2002 for reading and 2003 for mathematics. The reported in all of these categories, according to the
NAEP for these subjects is administered to a repre- Accountability results are based on school and district guidelines of NCLB.
sentative sample of students in each state (approxi- performance against three criteria: disaggregated
mately 2,000 students), producing state-level scores student assessment results, student participation on To illustrate recent achievement trends, two charts are
for grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics. Data state assessments, and performance on the other provided showing a three-year trend, where available,
for 1994 (reading) and 1996 (mathematics) NAEP are indicator selected by the state. Any consequences are for the percentage of students achieving at the state’s
provided in order to show trends, as these years are applied in the following school year. The middle part proficient level or above in reading and mathematics
closest to the 1993-94 baseline used for the remain- of this column provides information on school and for one grade each in elementary, middle, and high
der of the report. district performance, including the number that made school.
AYP, the number identified for improvement (due to
Statewide Accountability Information missing AYP two or more years in a row), and the Nationwide Data
The first column on the second page of each state number that exited school improvement status (after
making AYP two years in a row). In addition to providing individual state profiles, this
profile provides a snapshot of state accountability report includes three tables that provide national
systems for the 2002-03 school year, the first year of summary information. Table 1 on page 2 provides a
NCLB implementation. Accountability information is Each state chooses its own assessment, sets its
own learning standards, and determines the level of summary of state assessments, the number of levels
presented for each state, including the name of the for which student achievement is reported, and the
state’s accountability system, the assessments used, proficiency expected of its students. As a result, AYP
results, as well as AMOs and targets are not compa- number of years consistent data is available. Table
the subjects included for state-level accountability 2 on page 4 provides a summary of student per-
rable from state-to-state.

vii
 formance in elementary and middle schools at the
proficient level or higher by state. Table 3 on page 6
provides a summary of student achievement trends
for elementary reading or language arts and middle
grades mathematics from 1995-96 through 2002-03
for states that have used consistent tests, standards
and performance levels. Finally, Table 4 on page 8
provides a table of links to state reports where disag-
gregated state reporting data are located.

viii
 Acknowledgments

The Council of Chief State School Officers received Sinclair, Nina Blecher, and Babette Gutmann in data
valuable contributions from many organizations and collection and project support.
individuals in preparing State Education Indicators
With a Focus on Title I 2002-03. We consider the We appreciate the support and encouragement from
report a collaborative effort. our Technical Working Group, who contributed signifi-
cantly to the profile redesign: Dale Carlson, Kerstin Le-
We received strong support from chief state school Floch, Peter Prowda, Pat Roschewski, Lani Seikaly, Beth
officers, state assessment directors, and state Title I Sinclair, Robin Taylor, Lee Hoffman, Daphne Kaplan,
directors for the idea of a 50-state report profiling Joseph McCrary, Mary Moran, and Stephanie Stullich.
key statewide education indicators and indicators of
progress of Title I programs. States provided excellent The data were proofed by Carla Toye, Nina de las Alas,
cooperation in reporting not only the state assessment and Carlise Smith. The state assessment directors,
data required under Title I but also further details Title I coordinators, and CCD coordinators reviewed
about state assessment systems and student demo- the profiles and proofed the state assessment data.
graphics that provide the context for analyzing assess- The EIMAC subcommittee on assessment, co-chaired
ment results. State education staff carefully reviewed by Sally Tiel (Idaho) and Louis Fabrizio (North Carolina),
the data in the state profiles and provided important reviewed the design and offered suggestions.
suggestions for improving the report, and we thank
them for their continued assistance which makes the
profiles possible.

Funding support for the State Education Indicators

report was provided under a task order from the U.S.
Department of Education, Policy and Program Stud-
ies Service. We very much appreciate the guidance
and assistance provided by staff in the Policy and
Program Studies Service, especially Jessica Hausman
and Adrienne Hosek, as well as staff from the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, especially Mary
Moran and Chuck Laster. The National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics provided access to data files from the
Common Core of Data, NAEP, and Schools and Staff-
ing Survey, and we particularly thank John Sietsema
and Lee Hoffman for their assistance. The database for
the state profiles was developed in collaboration with
Westat, Inc., and we appreciate the efforts of Beth

ix

 National
Summary*
Districts and schools Students Staff
Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03
(CCD) 15,046 14,518 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 557,199 754,040 teachers^(CCD) Elementary 1,188,537 1,341,125
K-8 30,898,963 33,280,335 Middle 473,922 507,940
9-12 11,874,991 14,039,773 High 655,858 754,324
Number of public schools ^ (CCD)

Total (K-12) 42,773,954 47,320,108 Combined 69,336 85,342

Elementary 50,978 53,530
Other 29,539 23,069
Middle 14,345 16,182
Total 2,417,192 2,711,800
High 15,715 17,958
Race/ethnicity^(CCD)
Combined 2,703 4,994 Number of FTE non-teacher staff ^ (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Other 1,450 1,190 Instructional aides 448,519 664,618
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 4
Total 85,179 93,854 Instructional coordinators 31,939 48,358
Black, non-Hispanic 17 17
Hispanic 13 19 Administrators 170,695 230,079
Number of charter schools 2,648 White, non-Hispanic 66 58 Other 1,676,783 2,011,754
(CCD) Total 2,327,936 2,954,809
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 8% 11%
Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
Finances taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 7% 8% English 78% 70%
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (ED /NCELA) Mathematics 72 67
Instructional $177,059,666 $228,097,714 Science 74 75
Noninstructional 13,288,231 15,574,173 Social studies 80 78
Support 98,615,160 126,578,578 Migrant students 1% 3%
Total 288,963,057 370,250,465 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
Per-pupil expenditures $6,613 $7,734 Algebra I for high school credit 24% 27%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands) Only state data available.
(NAEP)

Sources of funding Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-

(CCD, 2001-02) Local Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 (CCD) 13,611,199 Outcomes
Federal 43% 1993-94 2000-01
8% High school dropout rate^(NCES) 5% 5%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 75 72
2002-03^(CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 58 63
State ^
49% NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 39,226
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 14,631 Proficient level or above 28% 30%
Basic level or above 59 62
50-74% 18,129
Title I allocation 2001-02 $11,568,554,258 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 14,884 Proficient level or above 23% 27%
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent Basic level or above 61 66
KEY: — = Not applicable
KEY: n/a = Not available 6,984 schools did not report.
^ *Totals include 50 states, and the District of Columbia and Puerto
# = Sample size too small to calculate Rico, unless otherwise noted.
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
^ = Interpret with caution, total does not include all states or districts 
 Assessments
Table 1: State Assessments, Number of Student Proficiency Levels, and
Years of Consistent Assessment Data, 2002-03
State Number of student Years of
State assessment* proficiency levels consistent data
Alabama Stanford 10 n/a —
Alaska Alaska Benchmark Exams 4 2
Arizona Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) 4 —
Arkansas Arkansas Benchmark Exams 4 —
California California Standards Tests, California High School Exit Exam 5 3 (Reading)
Colorado Colorado Student Assessment Program 4 7
Connecticut CMT 5 4
Delaware Delaware Student Testing Program 5 4
District of Columbia Stanford 9 4 —
Florida Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 5 3
Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) 3 4
Georgia High School Graduation Tests 3 —
Hawaii Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II 4 2
Idaho Idaho State Achievement Tests 3 —
Illinois Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) 4 5
Indiana Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+) 3 3
Iowa Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Iowa Test of Ed. Dev. 3 3
Kansas Kansas Assessment Program 5 4
Kentucky Kentucky Core Content Test 4 5
Louisiana Louisiana Educational Assessment Program 5 3
Maine Maine Educational Assessment 4 5
Maryland Maryland School Assessments 3 —
Massachusetts Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System 4 4
Michigan Michigan Educational Assessment Program 4 7 (Reading)
Minnesota Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment 5 7 (Math)
Mississippi Mississippi Curriculum Test 4 —
Missouri Missouri Assessment Program 5 6
Montana Montana Comprehensive Assessment System 4 3
Nebraska School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) 4 —
Nevada Nevada Criterion-Referenced Tests 4 —



State Number of student Years of
State assessment* proficiency levels consistent data
New Hampshire New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program 4 —
New Jersey New Jersey Skills and Knowledge Assessment 3 5
New Mexico New Mexico Standards Based Assessment 4 —
New York New York State Tests 4 —
North Carolina North Carolina End of Grade Mathematics/Reading 4 8
North Dakota North Dakota State Assessment 4 —
Ohio Ohio Proficiency Test 4 3
Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests 4 4
Oregon Oregon State Assessments 5 3
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania System of School Assessment 4 3
Puerto Rico Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de Aprovechamiento Académico 3 —
Rhode Island New Standards Reference Exam 2 —
South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test 4 5
South Dakota Dakota State Test of Educational Progress 4 —
Tennessee Tennessee Achievement Test 3 —
Texas Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) 3 —
Utah Utah Performance Assessment System for Students 4 —
Vermont New Standards Reference Examinations 5 —
Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments 3 6
Washington Washington Assessment of Student Learning 4 3
West Virginia WESTEST 5 —
Wisconsin Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations, WAA-SWD, WAA-LEP 4 5
Wyoming Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System 3 —
Nation (50 states plus the 3 levels: 15 states At least 3 years: 35 states
District of Columbia and 4 levels: 24 states 4-6 years: 12 states
Puerto Rico) 5 levels: 11 states More than 6 years: 4 states

*More information on assessments can be found in state profiles beginning on page 12.
Source: State assessment results submitted in the Consolidated Report, Section B, 2002-03, and follow-up by CCSSO with the State Education Accountability Reports and Indicator
Reports: Status of Reports across the States, 2003.
Note: The column showing “Years of Consistent Data” indicates the number of years that the state had a consistent test in the same grades and a consistent definition of proficient in at
least one subject and grade included in this report. See state profiles beginning on page 12 for more details.


 Summary of student performance 2002-03
Table 2: Percentage of Students Achieving At or Above Each State’s Proficient Level,
by Grade Level, in Reading or Language Arts and Mathematics, 2002-03
State term for Elementary school Middle school High school
proficient Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics
Alabama – Grade 4, 63% Grade 4, 64% Grade 8, 59% Grade 8, 56% – –
Alaska Proficient Grade 3, 74% Grade 3, 72% Grade 8, 68% Grade 8, 64% High school,70% High school, 70%
Arizona Meets the standard Grade 3, 64% Grade 3, 57% Grade 8, 46% Grade 8, 18% High school, 52% High school, 32%
Arkansas Proficient Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 60% Grade 8, 42% Grade 8, 22% High school, 41% High school, 43%
California Proficient Grade 4, 39% Grade 4, 46% Grade 8, 31% Grade 8, 29% High school, 48% High school, 39%
Colorado Proficient Grade 4, 87% Grade 5, 87% Grade 8, 89% Grade 8, 69% Grade 10, 88% Grade 10, 64%
Connecticut Proficient Grade 4, 69% Grade 4, 81% Grade 8, 78% Grade 8, 77% High school, 78% High school, 74%
Delaware Meets the standard Grade 3, 79% Grade 3, 74% Grade 8, 70% Grade 8, 47% Grade 10, 67% Grade 10, 45%
District of Columbia Proficient Grade 4, 46% Grade 4, 54% Grade 8, 42% Grade 8, 40% High school, 30% High school, 44%
Florida Level 4 Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 56% Grade 8, 49% Grade 8, 57% Grade 10, 37% Grade 10, 62%
Georgia Meets the standard Grade 4, 80% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 81% Grade 8, 67% Grade 11, 95% Grade 11, 92%
Hawaii Meets proficiency Grade 3, 43% Grade 3, 24% Grade 8, 39% Grade 8, 17% High school, 40% High school, 18%
Idaho Proficient Grade 4, 75% Grade 4, 77% Grade 8, 74% Grade 8, 53% High school, 75% High school, 71%
Illinois Meets standards Grade 3, 62% Grade 3, 76% Grade 8, 64% Grade 8, 53% Grade 11, 56% Grade 11, 53%
Indiana Pass Grade 3, 72% Grade 3, 67% Grade 8, 64% Grade 8, 66% High school, 68% High school, 68%
Iowa High Grade 4, 76% Grade 4, 75% Grade 8, 69% Grade 8, 72% High school, 77% High school, 79%
Kansas Proficient Grade 5, 69% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 71% Grade 7, 60% Grade 11, 61% Grade 10, 46%
Kentucky Proficient Grade 4, 62% Grade 5, 38% Grade 7, 57% Grade 8, 31% High school, 31% High school, 33%
Louisiana Basic Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 60% Grade 8, 55% Grade 8, 52% High school, 53% High school, 59%
Maine Meets the standard Grade 4, 49% Grade 4, 28% Grade 8, 45% Grade 8, 18% High school, 46% High school, 20%
Maryland Proficient Grade 3, 58% Grade 3, 65% Grade 8, 60% Grade 8, 40% High school, 61% High school, 43%
Massachusetts Proficient Grade 4, 56% Grade 4, 40% Grade 7, 66% Grade 8, 37% High school, 61% High school, 51%
Michigan Meets expectations Grade 4, 66% Grade 4, 66% Grade 7, 59% Grade 8, 54% High school, 64% High school, 43%
Minnesota Level III Grade 3, 76% Grade 3, 74% – – – –
Mississippi Proficient Grade 4, 87% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 57% Grade 8, 48% High school, 35% High school, 45%
Missouri Proficient Grade 3, 34% Grade 4, 37% Grade 7, 32% Grade 8, 14% High school, 22% High school, 12%
Montana Proficient Grade 4, 77% Grade 4, 75% Grade 8, 71% Grade 8, 70% Grade 11, 78% Grade 11, 77%
Nebraska Proficient Grade 4, 83% Grade 4, 82% Grade 8, 80% Grade 8, 75% High school, 77% High school, 65%

State term for Elementary school Middle school High school

proficient Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics
Nevada Meets standard Grade 3, 51% Grade 3, 51% Grade 8, 56% – High school, 81% High school, 55%
New Hampshire Proficient Grade 3, 77% Grade 3, 80% Grade 6, 72% Grade 6, 74% High school, 70% High school, 63%
New Jersey Proficient Grade 4, 78% Grade 4, 68% Grade 8, 74% Grade 8, 57% High school, 80% High school, 66%
New Mexico Proficient Grade 4, 70% Grade 4, 65% Grade 8, 69% Grade 8, 64% Grade 10, 91% Grade 10, 84%
New York**
North Carolina Level III Grade 4, 81% Grade 4, 92% Grade 8, 86% Grade 8, 82% High school, 64% High school, 69%
North Dakota Proficient Grade 4, 74% Grade 4, 58% Grade 8, 69% Grade 8, 44% High school, 52% High school, 33%
Ohio Proficient Grade 4, 66% Grade 4, 59% Grade 6, 65% Grade 6, 53% High school, 87% High school, 71%
Oklahoma Satisfactory Grade 5, 65% Grade 5, 65% Grade 8, 71% Grade 8, 65% High school, 56% High school, 13%
Oregon Meets standard Grade 3, 83% Grade 3, 78% Grade 8, 60% Grade 8, 59% High school, 52% High school, 45%
Pennsylvania Proficient Grade 5, 58% Grade 5, 56% Grade 8, 64% Grade 8, 51% Grade 11, 59% Grade 11, 49%
Puerto Rico Proficient Grade 3, 53% Grade 3, 59% Grade 8, 37% Grade 8, 35% Grade 11, 54% Grade 11, 35%
Rhode Island Achieved standard Grade 4, 62% Grade 4, 42% Grade 8, 41% Grade 8, 34% High school, 43% High school, 34%
South Carolina Proficient Grade 4, 32% Grade 4, 33% Grade 8, 20% Grade 8, 19% High school, 29% High school, 31%
South Dakota Proficient Grade 4, 85% Grade 4, 72% Grade 8, 77% Grade 8, 55% Grade 11, 57% Grade 11, 69%
Tennessee Proficient Grade 3, 81% Grade 3, 80% Grade 8, 80% Grade 8, 79% High school, 89% High school, 77%
Texas Met the standard Grade 4, 86% Grade 4, 87% Grade 8, 88% Grade 8, 73% Grade 10, 81% Grade 10, 73%
Utah Sufficient Grade 4, 79% Grade 4, 73% Grade 8, 72% Grade 8, 73% Grade 10, 80% Grade 10, 49%
Vermont Achieves the standard Grade 4, 81% Grade 4, 73% Grade 8, 62% Grade 8, 67% Grade 10, 55% Grade 10, 62%
Virginia Pass/proficient Grade 3, 72% Grade 3, 83% Grade 8, 70% Grade 8, 75% Grade 11, 92% Grade 11, 80%
Washington Level 3 Grade 4, 67% Grade 4, 55% Grade 7, 48% Grade 7, 37% High school, 60% High school, 40%
West Virginia Mastery Grade 3-11, 61% Grade 3-11, 69% – – – –
Wisconsin Proficient Grade 4, 81% Grade 4, 71% Grade 8, 83% Grade 8, 73% Grade 10, 71% Grade 10, 69%
Wyoming Proficient Grade 4, 41% Grade 4, 37% Grade 8, 44% Grade 8, 35% Grade 11, 54% Grade 11, 44%

*More information on assessments can be found in state profiles beginning on page 12.
**New York reports data in a proficiency index. See the state profile for more information.


 Student achievement trends
Table 3: Trends in the Percentage of Students Achieving At or Above Each State’s Proficient Level,
in Elementary Reading or Language Arts and in Middle Grades Mathematics, 1996 to 2003
State Grade Test Subject State term for Proficient** 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
California 4 California Standards Tests English/Lang. Arts Proficient – – – – – 33% 36% 39%
Connecticut 4 Connecticut Mastery Test Reading Proficient – – – – 71% 71% 69% 69%
8 Mathematics – – – – 77% 76% 77% 77%
Delaware 3 Del. Student Testing Program Reading Meets Standard – – – – 77% 78% 80% 79%
8 Mathematics – – – – 36% 43% 48% 47%
Georgia 4 Criterion-Referenced Comp. Test Reading Meets Standard – – – – 65% 74% 77% 80%
8 Mathematics – – – – 54% 58% 65% 67%
Illinois 3 Illinois Standards Achiev. Test Reading Meets Standards – – – 61% 62% 62% 63% 62%
8 Mathematics – – – 43% 47% 50% 52% 53%
Iowa 4 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Reading Proficient – – – – – 68% 69% 76%
8 Mathematics – – – – – 74% 73% 72%
Kansas 5 Kansas Assessment Program Reading Proficient – – – – 62% 63% 63% 69%
7 Mathematics – – – – 53% 57% 56% 60%
Kentucky 4 Kentucky Core Content Test Reading Proficient – – – 32% 57% 58% 60% 62%
8 Mathematics – – – 33% 25% 27% 26% 31%
Maine 4 Maine Educational Assessment Reading Meets the Standard – – – 47% 45% 51% 49% 49%
8 Mathematics – – – 19% 21% 20% 21% 18%
Mass. 4 Mass. Comp. Assmt. System English Lang. Arts Proficient – – – – 20% 51% 54% 56%
8 Mathematics – – – – 34% 34% 34% 37%
Michigan 4 Mich. Educ. Assmt. Program Reading/Lang. Arts Met Expectations – 49% 59% 59% 58% 60% 57% 66%
Missouri 3 Missouri Assessment Program Comm. Arts Proficient – – – 29% 32% 32% 36% 34%
8 Mathematics – – 13% 11% 14% 14% 14% 14%
Montana 4 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Reading Proficient – – – – – 79% 73% 77%
8 Mathematics – – – – – 69% 68% 70%
New Jersey 4 New Jersey Proficiency Test Language Arts Literacy Proficient – – – 57% 55% 79% 79% 78%
8 Mathematics – – – 62% 60% 62% 58% 57%
N. Carolina 4 N.C. End of Grade/Course Test Reading Level III 69% 68% 71% 71% 72% 74% 77% 81%
8 Mathematics 68% 69% 76% 78% 80% 80% 83% 82%
Ohio 4 Ohio Proficiency Test Reading Proficient – – – – – 56% 66% 53%
6 Mathematics – – – – – 61% 59% 65%
Oklahoma 5 Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test Reading Satisfactory – – – – 68% 66% 63% 65%
8 Mathematics – – – – 65% 63% 64% 65%

State Grade Test Subject State term for Proficient** 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Oregon 3 Oregon State Assmts. Reading Meets Standard – – – – – 84% 85% 83%
8 Mathematics – – – – – 55% 58% 59%
Pennsylvania 5 Penn. System of School Assmts. Reading Proficient – – – – – 56% 57% 58%
8 Mathematics – – – – – 51% 52% 51%
S. Carolina 4 Palmetto Achiev. Challenge Test English Language Arts Proficient – – – 29% 37% 37% 34% 32%
8 Mathematics – – – 15% 20% 18% 19% 19%
Virginia 3 Standards of Learning English Pass/Proficient – – 54% 61% 61% 64% 71% 72%
8 Mathematics – – – – 61% 68% 70% 75%
Washington 4 Wash. Assmt. of Student Learning Reading Level 3 – – – – – 67% 66% 67%
7 Mathematics – – – – – 27% 30% 37%
Wisconsin 4 Wis. Knowl. and Concepts Exam. Reading Proficient – – – 81% 78% 78% 79% 81%
8 Mathematics – – – 43% 42% 39% 44% 73%

*Note: “Trend” indicates at least one subject and grade in the state has had a consistent test, definitions of proficient, and grade tested across the years reported.
**More information on assessments can be found in state profiles beginning on page 12.


 State report cards
Table 4: Links to State Report Cards for More Information on Student Accountability and Assessment

State Web link

Alabama ftp://ftp.alsde.edu/documents/ReportCards/2002-2003/000.pdf
Alaska http://www.eed.state.ak.us/reportcard/2002-2003/2State%20Report%20Card/2002-2003%20Report%20Card.pdf
Arizona http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/2002-2003.pdf
Arkansas http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2003
California http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/viewreport.asp
Colorado http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/Reports/download/NCLBRptCrd/NCLBRprtCrdsFull0203.pdf
Connecticut http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/sch0203/school.htm
Delaware http://www.doe.k12.de.us/files/pdf/de_edreportcard200203.pdf
District of Columbia http://silicon.k12.dc.us/NCLB/reportcards.asp
Florida http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?schoolYear=2002-2003
Georgia http://reportcard2003.gaosa.org/
Hawaii http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/nclb/2003/SEArptFinal021204_rev062104.pdf
Idaho http://www.sde.state.id.us/ipd/reportcard/SchoolReportCard.asp
Illinois http://webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getsearchcriteria.aspx
Indiana http://www.doe.state.in.us/asap/pdf/2003IndianaAnnual.pdf
Iowa http://www.iowaccess.org/educate/ecese/nclb/doc/reportcard03.pdf
Kansas http://www3.ksde.org/accountability/accountability_report_2002_2003.pdf
Kentucky http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2F3C178D-15D7-47FD-8B0A-399E22E29E2A/0/NCLBmediareport.doc
Louisiana http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1794.asp
Maine http://www.state.me.us/education/profiles/getprofiles.htm
Maryland http://mdreportcard.org/
Massachusetts http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/staterc/
Michigan http://www.michigan.gov/documents/State_Report_Card_2003-04_120358_7.doc
Minnesota http://education.state.mn.us/ReportCard2005/
Mississippi http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/Account/RC3B/RC02-03.pdf
Missouri http://dese.mo.gov/commissioner/statereportcard/
Montana http://www.opi.state.mt.us/ReportCard/Index.html

State Web link

Nebraska http://reportcard.nde.state.ne.us/20022003/Main/PDFDownload.asp
Nevada http://www.nevadareportcard.com/
New Hampshire http://www4.measuredprogress.org/NHProfile/
New Jersey http://education.state.nj.us/rc/2003/index.html
New Mexico http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/ais/data/dcrfactsheets.html
New York http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrdfall2003/home.html
North Carolina http://www.ncreportcards.org/src/stateDetails.jsp?Page=1&pYear=2002-2003
North Dakota http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/profile/0203/ProfileDistrict/99999.pdf
Ohio http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=1266
Oklahoma http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/default.html
Oregon http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2003.pdf
Pennsylvania http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pas/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=97989
Puerto Rico Not available
Rhode Island http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/2003/state/
South Carolina http://www.myscschools.com/reportcard/2003/
South Dakota https://sis.ddncampus.net:8081/nclb/portal/portal.xsl?&extractID=1
Tennessee http://evaas.sas.com/tn_reportcard/welcome.jsp
Texas http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2003/index.html/
Utah http://u-pass.schools.utah.gov/u-passweb/
Vermont http://crs.uvm.edu/schlrpt
Virginia http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Publications/asrstat/2002-03/asrbook.html
Washington http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx
West Virginia http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/public03/nclbmenu.asp
Wisconsin http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/wsas/default.asp
Wyoming https://wdesecure.k12.wy.us/stats/wde.esc.show_menu


10


S tate P rofiles

11
 Alabama http://www.alsde.edu
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 127 129 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 8,445 n/a teachers (CCD) Elementary 18,619 21,325
K-8 527,373 523,594 Middle 6,474 7,436
9-12 198,651 203,117 High 9,699 10,962
Total (K-12) 726,024 726,711 Combined 5,898 5,455
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 2,312 1,927
Elementary 664 710
Total 43,002 47,104
Middle 218 231
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 246 274 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 155 167 Instructional aides 3,897 6,169
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 11 9 Instructional coordinators 393 667
Black, non-Hispanic 36 36
Total 1,294 1,391 Administrators 2,384 4,697
Hispanic * 2
White, non-Hispanic 62 60 Other 31,246 30,245
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 37,920 41,778
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited * 1% English 75% 63%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 89 83
Instructional $2,249,389 $2,721,721 Science 73 78
Noninstructional 284,407 307,556 Social studies 80 69
Support 935,139 1,415,114 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 3,468,935 4,444,391 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 35%
Per-pupil expenditures $4,898 $6,029 Algebra
I for high school credit 20% 17%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 29%
Low-poverty schools 36%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding Local Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 364,226
(CCD, 2001-02) Federal 31%
(CCD)
Outcomes
10%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 6% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 64 64
^
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)
64 58
59%
NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 301
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
Proficient level or above 23% 23%
35-49% 281
Basic level or above 52 53
Title I allocation 2001-02 $154,938,816 50-74% 445 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 12% 16%
75-100% 362 Basic level or above 45 53
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
2 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
12 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Alabama
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Stanford 10, not used for NCLB accountability in 2002-03
See Appendix B for Alabama’s definitions of proficient for reading/language arts and mathematics for Reading
grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade
All students 63% 59% –
See http://www.alsde.edu/html/reports1.asp?systemcode=000&schoolcode=0000 for more details on Economically disadvantaged students 50 42 –
the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 43 38 –
State assessment for NCLB accountability: n/a Students with disabilities 25 16 –
State student achievement levels: n/a Students with limited English proficiency 32 14 –
Black, non-Hispanic students 45 38 –
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 49 38 –
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 76 71 –
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading/Language Arts – –
100% 2003
Mathematics – –
Grade 8 Reading/Language Arts – – 75% n/a 2002
Mathematics – – 63 59 n/a 2001
Grade - Reading/Language Arts – – 50%
Mathematics – –
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0% n/a
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 n/a n/a n/a Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade
All students 64% 56% –
Year 2 n/a n/a n/a
Economically disadvantaged students 53 41 –
Corrective action n/a n/a n/a Migrant students 50 45 –
Restructuring n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 26 14 –
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 46 34 –
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 49 38 –
“made” above) Hispanic students 52 42 –
White, non-Hispanic students 74 67 –
Other indicator, 2002-03 State Target State Outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance – –
Middle indicator: Attendance – – 100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate – – n/a 2002
75% 64
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 56 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 836 * 50%
Supplemental educational services: 726 1%
25%
*AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, or other n/a
reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

13
 Alaska http://www.eed.state.ak.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 56 53 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 2,787 1,391 teachers (CCD) Elementary 3,067 3,401
K-8 90,814 92,991 Middle 756 1,095
9-12 32,347 39,984 High 1,479 1,816
Total (K-12) 123,161 132,975 Combined 1,109 1,555
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 782 214
Elementary 175 175
Total 7,193 8,080
Middle 31 35
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 70 65 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 23% 26%
Combined 204 225 Instructional aides 2,146 2,328
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 6
Other 3 n/a Instructional coordinators 102 172
Black, non-Hispanic 5 5
Total 483 500 Administrators 603 1,094
Hispanic 2 4
White, non-Hispanic 65 59 Other 5,362 5,427
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 15 Total 8,213 9,021
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 22% 15% English 84% 64%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 50 57
Instructional $662,113 $754,660 Science 79 77
Noninstructional 39,683 42,850 Social studies 66 73
Support 581,611 487,344 Migrant students
14% 10%
Total 1,283,408 1,284,854 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 31%
Per-pupil expenditures $10,190 $9,563 Algebra
I for high school credit 26% n/a
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 16%
Low-poverty schools 36%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Local Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 34,846
(CCD, 2001-02)
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 27%

1993-94 2000-01
17%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 8%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 74% 68
^
2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)
37
44
State
57% 0-34% 168 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 54 Proficient level or above — 28%
Basic level or above — 58
50-74% 81
Title I allocation 2001-02 $29,751,500 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 30% 30%
75-100% 76
Basic level or above 68 70
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
121 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
14 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Alaska
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Alaska Benchmark Exams, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Alaska’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
All students 74% 68% 70%
See http://www.eed.state.ak.us/stats/ for more details on the statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 58 48 47
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Alaska Benchmark Exams Migrant students 44 39 44
State student achievement levels: Far Below Proficient, Below Proficient, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 45 26 24
Students with limited English proficiency 44 34 32
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 71 63 47
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 73 56 63
White, non-Hispanic students 85 81 82
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 3 Reading 64.03% 64.03% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 54.86 54.86 100%
Grade 8 Reading 64.03 64.03 92 2003
75 74 2002
Mathematics 54.86 54.86 75% 68 70 70
High School Reading 64.03 64.03 n/a 2001
Mathematics 54.86 54.86 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 118 (40%) 206 (42%) 13 (24%)
0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 46 (16%) 49 (10%) 4 (7%) Mathematics
Year 2 9 (3%) 9 (2%) 2 (4%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
All students 72% 64% 70%
Corrective action 8 (3%) 8 (2%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 58 45 51
Restructuring 0 0 0 Migrant students 48 42 52
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 49 22 27
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 47 39 45
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 62 52 51
Hispanic students 69 46 62
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 82 75 79
Elementary indicator: Average daily attendance 85% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: Average daily attendance 85% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate 55.58% Met
100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
71 72 2002
Title I school choice: 26 * 75% 64 64 70
n/a 2001
Supplemental educational services: 475 2%
50% 40
25%

0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

15
 Arizona http://www.ade.state.az.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 217 323 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 3,164 7,434 teachers (CCD) Elementary 19,983 25,716
K-8 519,054 644,438 Middle 6,453 7,880
9-12 182,737 272,679 High 8,624 11,269
Total (K-12) 701,791 917,117 Combined 69 437
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 2,636 1,799
Elementary 720 1,008
Total 37,493 47,101
Middle 193 240
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 176 399 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 7% 7%
Combined 12 143 Instructional aides 9,519 13,650
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2
Other 11 11 Instructional coordinators 180 187
Black, non-Hispanic 4 5
Total 1,112 1,801 Administrators 2,040 2,397
Hispanic 28 36
White, non-Hispanic 60 50 Other 25,447 33,304
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 319 Total 37,186 49,538
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 9%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 12% 15% English 65% 52%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 61 49
Instructional $2,151,235 $3,123,642 Science 73 66
Noninstructional 243,677 346,134 Social studies 65 75
Support 1,332,105 2,029,869 Migrant students
2% 3%
Total 3,727,017 5,499,645 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 95%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,254 $5,964 Algebra
I for high school credit 26% 22%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 90%
Low-poverty schools 100%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 111,717
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 40%
1993-94 2000-01
10% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 14% 11%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 72 74
^
2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)
44
50
State
50% 0-34% 276 NAEP state results (NCES)

Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 83 Proficient level or above
24% 23%
50-74% 98 Basic level or above 52 54
Title I allocation 2001-02 $173,246,701 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 35 Proficient level or above 18% 21%
Basic level or above 57 62
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1,309 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
16 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Arizona
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Arizona’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
All students 64% 46% 52%
See http://www.ade.az.gov/researchpolicy/srcs.asp for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 48 28 31
system. Migrant students 33 20 21
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) Students with disabilities 32 17 19
State student achievement levels: Approaches the Standard, Falling Far below the Standard, Students with limited English proficiency 37 15 14
Black, non-Hispanic students 59 34 38
Meets the Standard, Exceeding the Standard
Hispanic students 49 29 33
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 80 62 67
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03) 100%
Grade 3 Reading 44% 44% 2003
Mathematics 32 32 75% n/a 2002
64 n/a 2001
Grade 8 Reading 31 31 52
Mathematics 7 7 50% 46
High School Reading 23 23
Mathematics 10 10 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 564 (72%) 1,294 (76%) 331 (66%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
All students 57% 18% 32%
Year 1 99 (13%) 99 (1%) 193 (34%)
Economically disadvantaged students 41 7 13
Year 2 100 (13%) 100 (1%) 0 Migrant students 37 7 10
Corrective action 20 (3%) 20 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 28 5 8
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 37 5 9
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 45 8 18
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 44 8 16
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 72 27 44

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 94% n/a 100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 94% n/a
75% n/a 2002
High School indicator: Graduation rate Meet or exceed 71% Met
57 n/a 2001
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 50%
Title I school choice: 149 * 32
Supplemental educational services: 2,815 1% 25% 18

0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

17
 Arkansas http://arkedu.state.ar.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 315 311 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,248 1,938 teachers (CCD) Elementary 12,440 13,521
K-8 314,617 315,854 Middle 5,050 6,040
9-12 125,801 131,716 High 7,623 8,859
Total (K-12) 440,418 447,570 Combined 390 468
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 3,511 1,442
Elementary 564 571
Total 29,014 30,330
Middle 161 199
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 324 326 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * 1%
Combined 6 9 Instructional aides 2,501 6,217
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1
Other 15 24 Instructional coordinators 784 613
Black, non-Hispanic 24 23
Total 1,070 1,129 Administrators 2,076 2,439
Hispanic 1 5
White, non-Hispanic 74 71 Other 19,145 24,216
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 7 Total 24,448 33,485
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 3% English 78% 82%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 70 79
Instructional $1,429,709 $1,739,455 Science 66 57
Noninstructional 155,090 144,218 Social studies 70 64
Support 697,321 939,213 Migrant students
3% 5%
Total 2,282,121 2,822,886 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 97%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,137 $6,276 Algebra
I for high school credit 18% 18%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) +
(NAEP) High-poverty schools 97%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 218,277
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 34%
1993-94 2000-01
11% High
school dropout rate 5% 5%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES)

participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 77 74
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 48 53
56% 0-34% 203 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 299 Proficient level or above 24% 28%
Basic level or above 54 60
50-74% 460
Title I allocation 2001-02 $97,234,354 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 13% 18%
75-100% 167
Basic level or above 52 57
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
18 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Arkansas
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Arkansas Benchmark Exams, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Arkansas’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8 and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 61% 42% 41%
See http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2003/ for more details on the statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 50 27 –
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Arkansas Benchmark Exams Migrant students 47 24 13
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 11 <5 <5
Students with limited English proficiency 39 16 10
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 40 21 16
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 56 31 22
White, non-Hispanic students 69 50 51
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 4 Reading 31.8% 37.48% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 28.2 34.18 100% 2003
Grade 8 Reading 18.1 24.93
Mathematics 15.3 22.36 75% n/a 2002
61 n/a 2001
High school Reading 19.5 26.21
50% 42 41
Mathematics 10.4 17.87

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 227 (28%) 227 (21%) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 15 (2%) 15 (1%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 60% 22% 43%
Corrective action 2 (*) 2 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 49 11 –
Restructuring 0 0 0 Migrant students 50 8 17
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 20 <5 8
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 46 6 17
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 32 <5 18
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Hispanic students 58 13 28
White, non-Hispanic students 69 28 52
Elementary indicator: Attendance 92.70% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance 92.70% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
High school indicator: Graduation rate 86.7% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 100% 2003
Title I school choice: 175 * 75% n/a 2002
Supplemental educational services: 3 * 60 n/a 2001
50% 43
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 25% 22

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

19
 California http://www.cde.ca.gov
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 1,002 988 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 61,281 n/a teachers (CCD) Elementary 113,113 158,983
K-8 3,772,731 4,373,967 Middle 39,438 51,595
9-12 1,393,530 1,807,054 High 51,143 75,318
Total (K-12) 5,166,261 6,181,021 Combined 268 10,032
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 17,796 11,745
Elementary 4,943 5,550
Total 221,779 307,672
Middle 1,101 1,305
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 1,382 1,788 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 167 426 Instructional aides 55,984 72,242
Asian/Pacific Islander 11 11
Other 141 18 Instructional coordinators 4,248 6,664
Black, non-Hispanic 9 8
Total 7,734 9,087 Administrators 12,231 16,228
Hispanic 37 46
White, non-Hispanic 42 34 Other 136,843 178,858
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 408 Total 209,306 273,992
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 9%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 23% 26% English 76% 68%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 50 57
Instructional $19,239,205 $28,566,063 Science 62 77
Noninstructional 1,345,311 1,739,089 Social studies 77 84
Support 11,600,235 15,960,392 Migrant students
4% 8%
Total 32,184,751 46,265,544 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
48%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,040 $7,434 Algebra
I for high school credit 27% 46%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 35%
Low-poverty schools 53%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 3,002,890
(CCD, 2001-02)
(CCD)
Outcomes
Local
1993-94 2000-01
Federal 31% High school dropout rate
9% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) n/a n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 82% 72%
^
2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)
61 48
State
59% NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 3,562
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 1,164 Proficient level or above 18% 21%
Basic level or above 44 49
Title I allocation 2001-02 $1,448,883,975 50-74% 2,029 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 17% 21%
75-100% 2,246 Basic level or above 51 55
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
86 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
20 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 California
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
California Standards Tests and California High School Exit Exam, used for
See Appendix B for California’s definitions of proficient for English language arts and mathematics for NCLB accountability
grades 4, 8, and high school. English or language arts
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
See http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/viewreport.asp for more on the statewide accountability system.
All students 39% 31% 48%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: California Standards Tests (CSTs) grades 2-8, Cali- Economically disadvantaged students 24 16 28
fornia High School Exit Exam (SCSAHSEE) grade 10 Migrant students 13 9 17
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Far Below Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 15 5 14
Students with limited English proficiency 21 14 25
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 27 17 33
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 24 16 30
objective starting point (2002-03) White, non-Hispanic students 59 47 67
Grade 4 English language arts 13.6% 13.6% Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 16 16 100% 2003
Grade 8 English language arts 13.6 13.6
Mathematics 16 16 75% 2002
High school English language arts 11.2 11.2 2001
50% 48
Mathematics 9.6 9.6 33 36 39 32 32 31 31 33
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%
AYP Outcomes and Consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP 2,786 (51%) 4,874 (54%) 456 (44%) Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 644 (54%) 644 (7%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 46% 29% 39%
Year 2 216 (18%) 216 (2%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 33 16 23
Corrective action 329 (27%) 329 (4%) 0 Migrant students 25 13 17
Restructuring 11 (1%) 11 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 20 6 10
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 191 (16%) 191 (2%) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 34 18 24
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 29 12 19
“made” above) Hispanic students 33 15 21
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White students 61 42 56
Elementary, Middle, and High school indicator: Meeting API Met target. Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Academic Performance Index (API), reflecting growth target or growing
in all performance areas. at least one API point. 100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students n/a 2002
75%
Title I school choice: 3,609 * n/a 2001
Supplemental educational services: 41,198 1% 50% 46 39
29
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

21
 Colorado http://www.cde.state.co.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 176 178 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 7,249 20,005 teachers (CCD) Elementary 16,771 22,407
K-8 451,469 513,918 Middle 7,267 9,288
9-12 164,260 217,133 High 8,681 12,010
Total (K-12) 615,729 731,051 Combined 67 1,337
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 876 359
Elementary 817 959
Total 33,661 45,401
Middle 246 291
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 243 339 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 14 72 Instructional aides 4,995 11,008
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3
Other 18 1 Instructional coordinators 670 926
Black, non-Hispanic 5 6
Total 1,373 1,662 Administrators 2,592 3,313
Hispanic 17 24
White, non-Hispanic 74 66 Other 21,102 29,748
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 92 Total 29,359 44,995
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 9%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 4% 11% English 91% 80%
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 65 68
Instructional $2,324,087 $2,976,088 Science 78 72
Noninstructional 142,061 183,604 Social studies 61 88
Support 1,316,544 1,991,311 Migrant students
1% 3%
Total 3,782,691 5,151,003 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
86%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,051 $6,941 Algebra
I for high school credit 28% 27%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 85%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 214,115
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal
6%
52%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 77% 73%
^
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)
52 53
42%
0-34% 966 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 275 Proficient level or above 28% 37%
50-74% 302 Basic level or above 59 70
Title I allocation 2001-02 $96,384,762 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 116 Proficient level or above 25% 35%
Basic level or above 67 74
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
3 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
22 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Colorado
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Colorado Student Assessment Program and Colorado Student Assessment
See Appendix B for Colorado’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 10. Program - Alternative, used for NCLB accountability
Reading
See http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeunified/NCLBProfiles0506/index.asp for more details on the state-
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
wide accountability system. All students 87% 89% 88%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Colorado Student Assessment Program and Colorado Economically disadvantaged students 77 77 76
Student Assessment Program - Alternative Migrant students 66 62 55
State student achievement levels: Unsatisfactory, Partially Proficient, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 55 52 52
Students with limited English proficiency 69 67 68
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 78 82 79
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 76 76 77
White, non-Hispanic students 93 93 91
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 4 Reading 76.92% 76.92% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 75.86 75.86 100% 89 2003
87 88
Grade 8 Reading 73.61 73.61 75% n/a 2002
Mathematics 59.51 59.51 n/a 2001
Grade 10 Reading 79.65 79.65 50%
Mathematics 47.00 47.00
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Made AYP 454 (75%) 1,322 (75%) 105 (59%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 39 (6%) 39 (2%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 87% 69% 64%
Year 2 37 (6%) 37 (2%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 76 45 39
Corrective action 1 (*) 1 (*) 0 Migrant students 67 39 27
Restructuring 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 58 24 18
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a 0 Students with limited English proficiency 71 42 34
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 72 44 33
“made” above) Hispanic students 76 49 37
White, non-Hispanic students 93 78 72
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary and Middle indicator: Percentage of students 1% or greater Met
in the advanced category on the CSAP. 100%
High school indicator: Graduation rate 55.3% or greater Met 87 2003
75% 69 n/a 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 64 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 368 * 50%
Supplemental educational services: 2,149 2%
25%

0%
Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10

23
 Connecticut http://www.state.ct.us/sde
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 166 166 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 6,216 11,133 teachers (CCD) Elementary 16,018 19,004
K-8 352,360 394,795 Middle 7,409 9,712
9-12 127,655 164,008 High 8,561 12,603
Total (K-12) 480,015 558,803 Combined 368 823
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 2,170 154
Elementary 625 654
Total 34,526 42,296
Middle 177 193
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 162 197 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 15 40 Instructional aides 6,178 12,076
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 3%
Other 18 3 Instructional coordinators 416 400
Black, non-Hispanic 13 14
Total 997 1,087 Administrators 2,442 3,507
Hispanic 11 14
White, non-Hispanic 73 69 Other 18,452 28,082
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 13 Total 27,488 44,065
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 4% 4% English 84% 71%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 84 62
Instructional $3,201,775 $3,861,634 Science 90 77
Noninstructional 243,055 216,609 Social studies 92 79
Support 1,604,096 1,952,819 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 5,048,927 6,031,062 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
96%
Per-pupil expenditures $10,174 $10,577 Algebra
I for high school credit 28% 31%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 95%
Low-poverty schools 98%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 145,017
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 1993-94 2000-01
5% 53%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 80 77
^
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 59 62
43% 0-34% 736 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 94
Proficient level or above 38% 43%
50-74% 107 Basic level or above 68 74
Title I allocation 2001-02 $104,126,530 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 138 Proficient level or above 31% 35%
Basic level or above 70 73
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
12 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
24 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Connecticut
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Connecticut Mastery Test/Academic Performance Test, used for NCLB
See Appendix B for Connecticut’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, accountability
and high school. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
See http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/edfacts/performance.htm for more details on the statewide All students 69% 78% 78%
accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 42 53 51
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Migrant students n/a n/a n/a
State student achievement levels: Basic, Below Basic, Proficient, Goal, Advanced Students with disabilities 28 38 40
Students with limited English proficiency 18 20 27
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 42 55 53
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 39 50 50
White, non-Hispanic students 79 87 84
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 4 Reading 57% 55% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 65 64 100% 2003
Grade 8 Reading 57 55 77 78 78 78 79 78
Mathematics 65 64 75% 71 69 69 2002
High school Reading 62 62 2001
Mathematics 59 59 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP 341 (71%) 799 (81%) 141 (82%) Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 77 (15%) 95 (10%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 81% 77% 74%
Year 2 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 61 50 42
Corrective action 8 (2%) 8 (1%) 0 Migrant students n/a n/a n/a
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 47 36 39
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 45 31 32
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 59 48 39
“made” above) Hispanic students 60 48 42
White, non-Hispanic students 89 87 86
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary and Middle indicator: 70% or more students at basic or Met
Writing assessment above, or increase from previous year.
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a 81 80 81
76 77 77 77 78 74 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75%
2001
Title I school choice: 260 * 50%
Supplemental educational services: 711 1%
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

25
 Delaware http://www.doe.state.de.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 19 19 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 565 665 teachers (CCD) Elementary 2,376 3,213
K-8 76,052 81,556 Middle 1,741 1,764
9-12 28,930 34,121 High 1,435 2,178
Total (K-12) 104,982 115,677 Combined n/a 361
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 828 182
Elementary 86 104
Total 6,380 7,698
Middle 41 44
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 32 32 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 18 21 Instructional aides 846 1,388
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 3%
Other n/a n/a Instructional coordinators 61 181
Black, non-Hispanic 29 31
Total 177 201 Administrators 491 640
Hispanic 3 7
White, non-Hispanic 66 58 Other 3,862 4,542
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 11 Total 5,260 6,751
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 3% English 90% 61%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics # 74
Instructional $510,983 $660,857 Science 82 68
Noninstructional 34,687 50,033 Social studies 77 n/a
Support 278,661 361,985 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 824,332 1,072,875 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
85%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,810 $9,284 Algebra
I for high school credit 39% 21%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 85%
Low-poverty schools 95%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 41,319
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 27% 1993-94 2000-01
9%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 74 71
^
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 65 60
64%
0-34% 82 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 62 Proficient level or above 23% 33%
Basic level or above 52 71
50-74% 48
Title I allocation 2001-02 $27,673,805 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 8 Proficient level or above 19% 25%
Basic level or above 55 68
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1 school did not report.
K n/a = Not available
26 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Delaware
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Delaware Student Testing Program, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Delaware’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, Reading
and 10. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 79% 70% 67%
See http://www.doe.state.de.us/docs/pdf/de_edreportcard200304.pdf for more details on the state- Economically disadvantaged students 68 54 43
wide accountability system. Migrant students * * *
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Delaware Student Testing Program Students with disabilities 44 25 13
State student achievement levels: Well Below the Standard, Below the Standard, Meets the Students with limited English proficiency 67 16 15
Black, non-Hispanic students 65 55 46
Standard, Distinguished, Exceeds the Standard
Hispanic students 73 55 44
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 88 79 77
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 3 Reading 62% 57% 78 80 79
Mathematics 41 33 75% 2002
68 72 70
Grade 8 Reading 62 57 61 67 67 2001
Mathematics 41 33 50%
Grade 10 Reading 62 57
Mathematics 41 33 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 74% 47% 45%
Year 1 n/a n/a n/a
Economically disadvantaged students 62 27 22
Year 2 n/a n/a n/a Migrant students * * *
Corrective action n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 41 12 6
Restructuring n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 51 24 24
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 56 26 20
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 67 33 26
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 84 59 56

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Grade 4, 6, 8 students Progress toward Met
100% 2003
at/above standard on DSTP social studies & science or above 85%
High school indicator: Graduation rate Progress toward or above 90% Met 73 72 74 2002
75%
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
Title I school choice: – – 50% 43 48 47 37 43 45
Supplemental educational services: n/a n/a
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10

27
 District of Columbia http://www.k12.dc.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 1 1 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 5,216 4,703 teachers (CCD) Elementary 2,286 n/a
K-8 53,903 50,486 Middle 905 n/a
9-12 17,854 15,374 High 977 n/a
Total (K-12) 71,757 65,860 Combined 105 n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,783 n/a
Elementary 111 119
Total 6,056 n/a
Middle 26 28
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 20 30 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 5 8 Instructional aides 366 1,536
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 2%
Other 11 18 Instructional coordinators 168 20
Black, non-Hispanic 89 84
Total 173 203 Administrators 799 333
Hispanic 6 10
White, non-Hispanic 4 4 Other 3,202 4,655
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 34 Total 4,535 6,544
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 15%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 6% 8% English 90% 68%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 82 87
Instructional $449,382 $452,905 Science # n/a
Noninstructional 37,699 27,834 Social studies # 74
Support 426,240 431,692 Migrant students
* 2%
Total 913,321 912,431 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
43%
Per-pupil expenditures $11,321 $12,102 Algebra
I for high school credit 53% 16%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 37%
Low-poverty schools 44%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 47,189
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
87% 1993-94 2000-01
Federal
13% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 10% n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 59 60%
^
2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 71 48
0-34% 25 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 10 Proficient level or above n/a 11%
50-74% 61 Basic level or above n/a 32
Title I allocation 2001-02 $34,870,281 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 95 Proficient level or above 5% 6%
Basic level or above 20 29
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
12 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
28 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent

District of Columbia
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Stanford 9, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for the District of Columbia’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for Reading
grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 46% 42% 30%
See http://silicon.k12.dc.us/NCLB/reportcards.asp for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 48 46 33
system. Migrant students 60 65 40
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Stanford 9 Students with disabilities 16 11 7
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 29 13 <5
Black, non-Hispanic students 44 40 28
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 44 40 20
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 96 91 86
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Elementary Reading 30.3% 30.3% 100%
Mathematics 38.4 38.4 2003
Secondary Reading 19.8 19.8 75% n/a 2002
Mathematics 13.7 13.7 n/a 2001
High school Reading 19.8 19.8 50% 46 42
Mathematics 13.7 13.7 30
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 50 (27%) 78 (42%) 0
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 65 (35%) 65 (35%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 54% 40% 44%
Year 2 14 (8%) 14 (8%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 58 42 47
Corrective action 0 0 0 Migrant students 63 58 57
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 15 8 10
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 45 27 40
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 52 37 41
“made” above) Hispanic students 58 43 44
White, non-Hispanic students 97 93 87
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or approach 90%. 97 schools met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or approach 90%. 21 schools met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% n/a 2002
54 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 192 * 44
50% 40
Supplemental educational services: 1,120 2%
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

29
 Florida http://www.flboe.org
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 67 67 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 34,793 51,304 teachers (CCD) Elementary 55,750 68,661
K-8 1,480,401 1,724,113 Middle 19,218 26,552
9-12 525,569 729,149 High 20,830 33,510
Total (K-12) 2,005,970 2,453,262 Combined 6,996 8,590
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 7,859 913
Elementary 1,479 1,826
Total 110,653 138,226
Middle 393 511
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 343 442 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 300 593 Instructional aides 22,238 31,040
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 2%
Other 41 10 Instructional coordinators 801 658
Black, non-Hispanic 25 25
Total 2,556 3,382 Administrators 7,436 8,483
Hispanic 14 21
White, non-Hispanic 60 52 Other 85,783 108,683
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 225 Total 116,258 148,864
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 6% 13% English 83% 86%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 76 67
Instructional $7,643,691 $9,161,962 Science 52 69
Noninstructional 646,235 772,643 Social studies 86 96
Support 4,936,846 5,601,259 Migrant students
2% 3%
Total 13,226,722 15,535,864 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
91%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,482 $6,213 Algebra
I for high school credit 27% 28%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 93%
Low-poverty schools 92%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 1,148,685
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 45%
10%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 66% 61
^
State 2002-03 (CCD) College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 49 58
45%
0-34%
NAEP state results (NCES)
1,163
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 559 Proficient level or above 23% 32%
Basic level or above 50 63
50-74% 936 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
Title I allocation 2001-02 $476,520,104
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 17% 23%
75-100% 712 Basic level or above
54 61
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
12 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
30 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Florida
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Florida’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 10. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
See http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org for more details on the statewide accountability system. All students 61% 49% 37%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Economically disadvantaged students 47 32 20
State student achievement levels: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 Migrant students 32 19 10
Students with disabilities 31 18 17
NCLB Accountability Goals Students with limited English proficiency 23 10 <5
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Black, non-Hispanic students 42 27 16
objective starting point (2002-03) Hispanic students 52 39 26
White, non-Hispanic students 73 62 48
Grade 4 Reading 31% 31%
Mathematics 38 38 Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 8 Reading 31 31 100% 2003
Mathematics 38 38
75% 2002
Grade 10 Reading 31 31 61
Mathematics 38 38
53 55 2001
50% 43 45 49
37 36 37
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 25%
Made AYP 128 (11%) 534 (15%) 0
0%
Identified for improvement: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Year 1 42 (3%) 42 (1%) 0
Year 2 0 0 0 Mathematics
Corrective action 0 0 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 56% 57% 62%
Restructuring 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 41 40 44
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Migrant students 32 29 35
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with disabilities 29 20 28
“made” above) Students with limited English proficiency 27 24 32
Black, non-Hispanic students 33 32 35
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Hispanic students 49 48 53
Elementary indicator: FCAT writing assessment 90% or 1% improvement Met White, non-Hispanic students 68 70 74
Middle indicator: FCAT writing assessment 90% or 1% improvement Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
High school indicator: FCAT writing assessment 90% or 1% improvement Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate 85% or 1% improvement Met 100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
75% 2002
Title I school choice: 10,283 3% 57 59 60 62
Supplemental educational services: 0 0 51 56 55 53 2001
50% 45

25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

31
 Georgia http://www.doe.k12.ga.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 181 180 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 5,534 34,745 teachers (CCD) Elementary 38,541 46,045
K-8 904,891 1,053,816 Middle 15,534 22,531
9-12 324,879 407,451 High 17,770 23,720
Total (K-12) 1,229,770 1,461,267 Combined 2,784 1,427
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 974 2,280
Elementary 1,085 1,205
Total 75,602 96,004
Middle 311 421
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 288 332 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 67 38 Instructional aides 20,043 23,792
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 2%
Other 4 7 Instructional coordinators 676 1,490
Black, non-Hispanic 37 38
Total 1,755 2,003 Administrators 5,743 6,885
Hispanic 2 6
White, non-Hispanic 60 53 Other 52,469 69,733
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 46 Total 78,931 101,900
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 4% English 82% 64%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 82 69
Instructional $4,447,073 $6,932,058 Science 68 70
Noninstructional 444,003 558,162 Social studies 90 88
Support 2,334,106 3,363,275 Migrant students
1% 2%
Total 7,225,182 10,853,495 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
94%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,849 $7,380 Algebra
I for high school credit 29% 27%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 95%
Low-poverty schools 96%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 674,800
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 44% 1993-94 2000-01
7%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 9% 7%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 68 59
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 59 60
49%
0-34% 583 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 389 Proficient level or above 26% 26%
Basic level or above 52 58
50-74% 609 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
Title I allocation 2001-02 $313,331,096
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 16% 21%
75-100% 422
Basic level or above 51 59
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
32 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Georgia
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests, High School Graduation Test, used
See Appendix B for Georgia’s definitions of proficient for Reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 11. for NCLB accountability
See http://reportcard.gaosa.org/yr2004/psc for more details on the statewide accountability system. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Criterion- Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) All students 80% 81% 95%
State student achievement levels: CRCT: Does Not Meet Standard, Meets Standard, Exceeds Economically disadvantaged students 71 71 90
Standard; GHSGT: Failure, Pass, Pass Plus Migrant students 58 51 84
Students with disabilities 51 43 74
NCLB Accountability Goals Students with limited English proficiency 47 46 67
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Black, non-Hispanic students 73 73 92
objective starting point (2002-03) Hispanic students 65 65 84
White, non-Hispanic students 88 88 97
Grade 4 Reading 60% 60%
Mathematics 50 50 Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 8 Reading 60 60 100% 94 95 95
80 82 80 81 2003
Mathematics 50 50 74 77
75% 2002
Grade 11 Reading 88 88 2001
Mathematics 81 81
50%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
25%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 762 (68%) 1,274 (64%) 12 (7%) 0%
Identified for improvement: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
Year 1 146 (13%) 146 (7%) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 90 (8%) 90 (5%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 74% 67% 92%
Corrective action 176 (16%) 176 (9%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 64 53 83
Restructuring 121 (11%) 121 (6%) 0 Migrant students 57 48 78
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 42 23 60
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 50 44 75
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 62 52 84
Hispanic students 64 54 85
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 83 77 96
Elementary indicator: LEA choice – – Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: LEA choice – –
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meeting 60% or progress toward goal. Met. 100% 91 91 92 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
75% 74 2002
Title I school choice: 2,547 * 63 66 65 67 2001
58
Supplemental educational services: 25,451 4%
50%

25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11

33
 Hawaii http://www.k12.hi.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 1 1 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 552 1,031 teachers (CCD) Elementary 5,629 5,677
K-8 131,051 129,779 Middle 1,322 1,815
9-12 48,728 52,922 High 2,805 3,062
Total (K-12) 179,779 182,701 Combined 342 268
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 14 153
Elementary 168 183
Total 10,111 10,973
Middle 28 37
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 33 43 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 10 19 Instructional aides 2,203 2,603
Asian/Pacific Islander 68% 72%
Other 2 1 Instructional coordinators 226 524
Black, non-Hispanic 3 2
Total 241 283 Administrators 609 640
Hispanic 5 5
White, non-Hispanic 24 20 Other 5,143 5,963
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 25 Total 8,181 9,730
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 7% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 6% 7% English 81% 81%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 69 76
Instructional $787,661 $815,123 Science 74 87
Noninstructional 76,988 75,474 Social studies 86 62
Support 413,162 457,784 Migrant students
n/a 1%
Total 1,277,811 1,348,381 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
87%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,082 $7,306 Algebra
I for high school credit 18% 17%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 84%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 80,630
(CCD, 2001-02)
(CCD)
Outcomes
State Federal
1993-94 2000-01
89% 9% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) n/a 6%
Local participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 76% 68
2% 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 62 60
0-34% 77 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 70 Proficient level or above 19% 21%
50-74% 96
Basic level or above 46 53
Title I allocation 2001-02 $33,671,612 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 40 Proficient level or above 16% 16%
Basic level or above 51 55
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
34 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Hawaii
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II State Assessment, used for
See Appendix B for Hawaii’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and NCLB accountability
high school. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
See http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/nclb/2004/NCLB999.pdf for more details on the statewide accountability All students 43% 39% 40%
system. Economically disadvantaged students 30 26 26
State assessment for NCLB accountability: HCPS II State Assessment Migrant students 21 18 20
State student achievement levels: Well Below Proficiency Assessment, Approaches Proficiency Students with disabilities 9 6 5
Students with limited English proficiency 8 5 7
Assessment, Meets Proficiency, Exceeds Proficiency
Black, non-Hispanic students 36 38 35
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 36 34 31
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 57 53 52
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 Reading 30% 30% 100% 2003
Mathematics 10 10 2002
Grade 8 Reading 30 30 75% 61
54 n/a 2001
Mathematics 10 10
50% 43 39 44 40
High school Reading 30 30
Mathematics 10 10 25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 42 (31%) 109 (39%) 0 Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 24% 17% 18%
Year 1 3 (2%) 3 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 15 8 9
Year 2 12 (9%) 12 (4%) 0 Migrant students 12 5 8
Corrective action 25 (18%) 25 (9%) 0 Students with disabilities 6 <5 <5
Restructuring 44 (32%) 44 (16%) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 6 <5 5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 12 7 8
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 15 9 9
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 32 23 23

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Grade-level retention rate 3% or less Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Grade-level retention rate 6% or less Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate 70% Met 75% 2002
65
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of Title I students 52 n/a 2001
50% 49
Title I school choice: 157 *
Supplemental educational services: 2,447 3% 24 18
25% 17

0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

35
 Idaho http://www.sde.state.id.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 113 114 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,389 2,517 teachers (CCD) Elementary 5,713 6,379
K-8 164,828 170,608 Middle 2,635 2,924
9-12 69,287 75,241 High 3,205 4,081
Total (K-12) 234,115 245,849 Combined 155 365
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 300 147
Elementary 329 350
Total 12,007 13,896
Middle 100 106
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 142 172 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 15 28 Instructional aides 1,709 2,641
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 13 4 Instructional coordinators 185 274
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 599 660 Administrators 709 847
Hispanic 7 11
White, non-Hispanic 90 86 Other 5,373 7,239
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 13 Total 7,976 11,001
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 8% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 3% 8% English 69% 57%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 46 49
Instructional $695,625 $905,333 Science 77 75
Noninstructional 53,749 63,933 Social studies 73 66
Support 350,421 512,538 Migrant students
5% 6%
Total 1,099,794 1,481,804 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools 98%
Per-pupil expenditures $4,645 $6,011 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 28%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 98%
Low-poverty schools Not available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 90,447
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 1993-94 2000-01
9% 30%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 9% 6%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 80 80
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 48 45
61%
0-34% 261 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 196 Proficient level or above n/a 30%
Basic level or above n/a 64
50-74% 168 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
Title I allocation 2001-02 $32,795,334
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above n/a 28%
75-100% 34 Basic level or above n/a 72
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1 school did not report.
K n/a = Not available
36 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Idaho
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Idaho Standards Achievement Tests, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Idaho’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and high Reading
school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 75% 74% 75%
See http://www.sde.state.id.us/ipd/reportcard/SchoolReportCard0304.asp for more details on the Economically disadvantaged students 65 61 61
statewide accountability system. Migrant students 39 33 32
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Idaho Standards Achievement Test Students with disabilities 36 28 27
State student achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 39 36 29
Black, non-Hispanic students 75 65 63
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 50 44 40
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 79 78 79
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 66% 66% 100%
Mathematics 51 62 2003
75 74 75 n/a 2002
Grade 8 Reading 66 66 75%
Mathematics 51 51 n/a 2001
High school Reading 66 66 50%
Mathematics 51 51
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 – – – Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 77% 53% 71%
Year 2 – – –
Economically disadvantaged students 68 36 57
Corrective action – – – Migrant students 51 17 38
Restructuring – – – Students with disabilities 45 12 22
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice – – – Students with limited English proficiency 49 21 35
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 67 37 51
“made” above) Hispanic students 58 25 43
White, non-Hispanic students 81 57 74
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Language Arts ISAT Meet or progress toward standard Met
or student growth. set by board.
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward standard Met 100% 2003
77 n/a 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 71
Title I school choice: 0 – 53 n/a 2001
Supplemental educational services: 0 – 50%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 25%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.
0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

37
 Illinois http://www.isbe.state.il.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 922 893 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 42,359 60,524 teachers (CCD) Elementary 55,317 65,432
K-8 1,259,394 1,425,283 Middle 17,322 22,421
9-12 503,024 595,349 High 29,174 36,121
Total (K-12) 1,762,418 2,020,632 Combined 872 1,959
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 8,190 5,112
Elementary 2,618 2,619
Total 110,874 131,045
Middle 707 740
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 645 753 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 27 123 Instructional aides 17,609 32,902
Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 4%
Other 181 36 Instructional coordinators 1,507 1,298
Black, non-Hispanic 21 21
Total 4,178 4,271 Administrators 6,031 10,333
Hispanic 11 17
White, non-Hispanic 65 58 Other 63,201 82,656
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 22 Total 88,348 127,189
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 5% 8% English 89% 70%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 82 65
Instructional $7,763,834 $9,804,430 Science 77 93
Noninstructional 437,918 536,275 Social studies 80 90
Support 4,698,564 6,140,082 Migrant students
* *
Total 12,900,315 16,480,787 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
98%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,814 $7,956 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 23%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 95%
Low-poverty schools 100%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 741,954
(CCD, 2001-02)
Federal Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
8% 58%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 7% 6%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 76 76
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 64 60
34%
0-34% 2,194 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 534 Proficient level or above n/a 31%
Basic level or above n/a 61
50-74% 568
Title I allocation 2001-02 $430,679,234 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 672 Proficient level or above n/a 29%
Basic level or above n/a 66
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
303 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
38 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Illinois
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Illinois Standards Achievement Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Illinois’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and 11. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
See http://webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getsearchcriteria.aspx for more details on the All students 62% 64% 56%
statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 42 46 32
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) Migrant students 26 20 18
State student achievement levels: Academic Warning, Below Standards, Meets Standards, Students with disabilities 32 20 15
Exceeds Standards Students with limited English proficiency 38 15 16
Black, non-Hispanic students 35 45 31
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 49 47 35
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 76 73 65
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 Reading 40% 40% 100%
Mathematics 40 40 2003
Grade 8 Reading 40 40 75% 2002
Mathematics 40 40
62 63 62 66 68 64 58 58 56 2001
Grade 11 Reading 40 40 50%
Mathematics 40 40
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
Made AYP 1,441 (62%) 2,582 (68%) 455 (51%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 252 (10%) 244 (6%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 76% 53% 53%
Year 2 287 (11%) 279 (7%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 58 30 25
Corrective action 23 (1%) 240 (1%) 0 Migrant students 48 22 10
Restructuring 22 (1%) 22 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 55 13 13
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 57 18 24
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 49 23 21
“made” above) Hispanic students 69 36 29
White, non-Hispanic students 89 66 63
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 88% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 88% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 65%. Met
76
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 74 74 2002
2001
Title I school choice: 1,313 * 50 52 53 54 53 53
50%
Supplemental educational services: 18,000 3%
25%

0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11

39
 Indiana http://www.doe.state.in.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 292 294 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 3,971 5,407 teachers (CCD) Elementary 25,289 28,277
K-8 669,997 707,112 Middle 9,848 11,114
9-12 282,219 288,190 High 15,889 16,166
Total (K-12) 952,216 995,302 Combined 721 2,041
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 3,360 2,371
Elementary 1,180 1,165
Total 55,107 59,968
Middle 292 318
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 348 340 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 32 85 Instructional aides 13,633 17,426
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
Other 9 1 Instructional coordinators 1,293 1,623
Black, non-Hispanic 11 12
Total 1,861 1,909 Administrators 3,611 3,919
Hispanic 2 4
White, non-Hispanic 86 82 Other 40,248 44,062
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 11 Total 58,785 67,030
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 2% English 76% 87%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 81 72
Instructional $3,995,708 $4,689,264 Science 78 77
Noninstructional 284,075 316,010 Social studies 89 79
Support 2,203,966 2,699,273 Migrant students
1% 2%
Total 6,483,749 7,704,547 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
96%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,715 $7,734 Algebra
I for high school credit 21% 24%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 95%
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 325,856
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 1993-94 2000-01
6% 43%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 76% 72%
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 55 60
51%
0-34% 1,060 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 368 Proficient level or above 33% 33%
Basic level or above 66 66
50-74% 294
Title I allocation 2001-02 $152,669,344 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)
75-100% 155 Proficient level or above 24% 30%
Basic level or above 68 73
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
32 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
40 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Indiana
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus, used for NCLB
See Appendix B for Indiana’s definitions of proficient for English/language arts and mathematics for accountability
grades 3, 8, and high school. English or language arts
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
See http://www.doe.state.in.us/istep/2003/summary.html for more details on the statewide account-
All students 72% 64% 68%
ability system. Economically disadvantaged students 59 43 48
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Migrant students # # #
Progress Plus (ISTEP+) Students with disabilities 38 17 20
State student achievement levels: Did Not Pass, Pass, Pass Plus Students with limited English proficiency 51 24 24
Black, non-Hispanic students 50 36 38
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 56 45 49
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 76 68 74
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 English/language arts 58.8% 58.8% 100% 2003
Mathematics 57.1 57.1 80 80 2002
75% 72 68 64 68 68
Grade 8 English/language arts 58.8 58.8 64 66 2001
Mathematics 57.1 57.1
50%
High school English/language arts 58.8 58.8
Mathematics 57.1 57.1 25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 654 (85%) 1,405 (76%) 161 (55%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 67% 66% 68%
Year 1 26 (3%) 26 (1%) 23 (8%)
Economically disadvantaged students 54 45 47
Year 2 23 (3%) 23 (1%) 0 Migrant students # # #
Corrective action 18 (2%) 18 (1%) 0 Students with disabilities 41 22 27
Restructuring 10 (1%) 10 (1%) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 52 34 35
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 46 33 35
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 55 51 49
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 70 72 73

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 95% Met
75% 74 71 67 2002
61 67 66 66 68 2001
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 54
Title I school choice: 1,199 1% 50%
Supplemental educational services: 3,064 3%
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

41
 Iowa http://www.state.ia.us/educate
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 396 371 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 5,430 5,949 teachers (CCD) Elementary 14,572 16,089
K-8 333,743 315,773 Middle 6,521 7,204
9-12 142,601 152,147 High 10,389 11,216
Total (K-12) 476,344 467,920 Combined 133 65
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 852 797
Total 31,616 34,573
Middle 289 293
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 357 366 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * 1%
Combined 18 37 Instructional aides 4,945 8,439
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 2
Other – 7 Instructional coordinators 372 477
Black, non-Hispanic 3 4
Total 1,516 1,500 Administrators 2,496 3,149
Hispanic 2 4
White, non-Hispanic 93 89 Other 20,848 20,788
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 28,661 32,853
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 3% English 80% 70%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 74 73
Instructional $1,994,760 $2,124,947 Science 86 89
Noninstructional 145,189 259,195 Social studies 81 80
Support 1,095,643 1,181,655 Migrant students
* 2%
Total 3,235,591 3,565,797 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 95%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,491 $7,338 Algebra
I for high school credit 20% 19%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 95%

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced- Low-poverty schools 95%

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 137,404
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 1993-94 2000-01
7% 45%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 3% 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 87 83
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 64 65
48%
0-34% 1,024 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 296 Proficient level or above 35% 35%
Basic level or above 69 71
50-74% 139
Title I allocation 2001-02 $62,955,699 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 31% 33%
75-100% 41 Basic level or above 78 76
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
42 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Iowa
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (grades 4, 8) and the Iowa Tests of Educational
See Appendix B for Iowa’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and high Development (high school), used for NCLB accountability
school. Reading
See http://www.state.ia.us/educate/stateboard/doc/pocketcard03.pdf for more details on the state- Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
wide accountability system. All students 76% 69% 77%
Economically disadvantaged students 61 50 61
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Iowa Migrant students 44 30 26
Tests of Educational Development (ITED) Students with disabilities 29 23 28
State student achievement levels: Low, Intermediate, High Students with limited English proficiency 41 27 32
Black, non-Hispanic students 48 36 50
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 53 43 54
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 79 72 79
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 65% 65% 100% 2003
Mathematics 64 64 76 75 77 77
Grade 8 Reading 61 61 75% 68 69 69 69 69 2002
Mathematics 63 63
2001
High school Reading 69 69 50%
Mathematics 69 69
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 718 (98%) 1,488 (99%) 371 (100%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 75% 72% 79%
Year 1 12 (2%) 12 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 59 51 62
Year 2 0 0 0 Migrant students 49 39 37
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 35 25 33
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 45 34 40
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 43 33 44
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 53 43 53
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 78 74 81

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
75 74 73 72 79 81 79 2002
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 90% Met 75% 72 72
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 60 *
Supplemental educational services: 75 *
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

43
 Kansas http://www.ksde.org
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 304 304 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 2,432 2,257 teachers (CCD) Elementary 14,836 15,618
K-8 324,914 307,786 Middle 5,692 6,504
9-12 127,081 143,412 High 9,146 10,455
Total (K-12) 451,995 451,198 Combined 23 67
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 587 n/a
Elementary 865 804
Total 30,283 32,643
Middle 235 258
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 351 364 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 1 2 Instructional aides 4,178 6,805
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2
Other 4 3 Instructional coordinators 166 118
Black, non-Hispanic 8 9
Total 1,456 1,431 Administrators 2,103 2,991
Hispanic 5 10
White, non-Hispanic 84 77 Other 19,053 21,354
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 18 Total 25,500 31,268
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 2% 6% English 63% 66%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 63 58
Instructional $1,722,008 $2,017,178 Science 78 73
Noninstructional 146,144 161,018 Social studies 73 71
Support 1,108,602 1,272,727 Migrant students
3% 4%
Total 2,976,754 3,450,923 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
80%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,505 $7,339 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 28%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 80%
Low-poverty schools 79%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 168,744
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 1993-94 2000-01
8% 34%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 80% 77
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 57 68
58%
0-34% 662 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 380 Proficient level or above n/a 32%
Basic level or above n/a 66
50-74% 275 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
Title I allocation 2001-02 $73,138,975
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above n/a 34%
75-100% 114 Basic level or above n/a 76
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
44 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Kansas
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Kansas Assessment Program, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Kansas’s definitions of proficient for reading grades 5, 8, and 11, and mathematics Reading
for grades 4, 7, and 10. Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 69% 71% 61%
See http://www.ksde.org/ayp/2003_Kansas_State_Assessment_Highlights.pdf for more details on the Economically disadvantaged students 55 55 43
statewide accountability system. Migrant students 51 50 46
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Kansas Assessment Program Students with disabilities 49 39 28
State student achievement levels: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Advanced, Exemplary Students with limited English proficiency 50 53 50
Black, non-Hispanic students 44 47 33
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 52 53 42
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 74 75 64
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 5 Reading 51.2% 51.2% 100%
Grade 4 Mathematics 46.8 46.8 2003
Grade 8 Reading 51.2 51.2 75% 2002
71
63 63 69 66 67 2001
Grade 7 Mathematics 46.8 46.8
55 55 61
Grade 11 Reading 44 44 50%
Grade 10 Mathematics 29.1 29.1
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11
Made AYP 597 (93%) 1,216 (87%) 258 (85%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 6 (1%) 6 (*) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10
All students 74% 60% 46%
Year 2 5 (1%) 5 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 61 41 26
Corrective action 19 (3%) 19 (1%) 7 (2%) Migrant students 52 26 13
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 59 34 20
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 21 (3%) 21 (2%) 11 (4%) Students with limited English proficiency 50 22 13
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 48 28 16
“made” above) Hispanic students 56 33 19
White, non-Hispanic students 79 67 51
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 75% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 69 69 74 2002
57 56 60 2001
Title I school choice: 196 *
Supplemental educational services: 4,691 5%
50% 44 44 46
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10

45
 Kentucky http://www.kde.state.ky.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 176 176 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 15,732 n/a teachers (CCD) Elementary 19,213 19,088
K-8 442,834 440,952 Middle 7,410 8,007
9-12 184,356 182,479 High 10,701 10,773
Total (K-12) 627,190 623,431 Combined n/a 579
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a 2,214
Elementary 814 772
Total 37,324 40,662
Middle 222 233
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 251 293 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 10 80 Instructional aides 9,322 14,078
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
Other 6 3 Instructional coordinators 626 846
Black, non-Hispanic 10 10
Total 1,303 1,381 Administrators 2,945 3,722
Hispanic * 1
White, non-Hispanic 89 87 Other 31,062 36,531
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 43,955 55,177
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited * 1% English 63% 70%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 79 58
Instructional $2,263,697 $2,619,607 Science 55 65
Noninstructional 197,370 235,471 Social studies 80 70
Support 1,318,201 1,413,529 Migrant students
3% 3%
Total 3,779,268 4,268,607 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
95%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,767 $6,523 Algebra
I for high school credit 20% 20%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 97%
Low-poverty schools 93%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 434,012
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 30%
1993-94 2000-01
11% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 79% 70
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 49 59
60%
0-34% 228 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 113 Proficient level or above 26% 31%
50-74% 260 Basic level or above 56 65
Title I allocation 2001-02 $152,145,672 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 777 Proficient level or above 16% 24%
Basic level or above 56 66
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
3 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
46 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Kentucky
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Kentucky Core Content Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Kentucky’s definitions of proficient for reading, grades 4, 7, and high school and math- Reading
ematics for grades 5, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 High school
All students 62% 57% 31%
See http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/Reports/ Economically disadvantaged students 51 43 17
CTBS+5+Reports/default.htm for more details on the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 47 40 12
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Kentucky Core Content Test Students with disabilities 43 19 7
State student achievement levels: Novice, Apprentice, Proficient, Distinguished Students with limited English proficiency 38 31 12
Black, non-Hispanic students 43 35 15
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 53 51 23
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 65 60 33
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 47.27% 47.27% 100%
Grade 5 Mathematics 22.45 22.45 2003
Grade 7 Reading 45.6 45.6 75% 58 60 62 2002
Grade 8 Mathematics 16.49 16.49 54 56 57 2001
High school Reading 19.26 19.26 50%
30 29 31
Mathematics 19.76 19.76
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 7 High School
Made AYP 522 (62%) 700 (59%) 55 (31%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 0 0 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 High school
All students 38% 31% 33%
Year 2 25 (3%) 25 (2%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 26 17 17
Corrective action 0 0 0 Migrant students 19 16 21
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 19 9 9
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 28 17 20
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 19 10 13
“made” above) Hispanic students 31 23 26
White, non-Hispanic students 41 33 35
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Modified Kentucky Improvement from Met
Accountability Index previous year
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
2001
Title I school choice: 328 *
50%
Supplemental educational services: 1,170 * 34 36 38
27 26 31 30 30 33
25%

0%
Grade 5 Grade 8 High School

47
 Louisiana http://www.doe.state.la.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 66 68 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 12,857 21,856 teachers (CCD) Elementary 22,730 23,805
K-8 546,168 513,138 Middle 9,316 9,484
9-12 202,283 192,873 High 10,891 11,728
Total (K-12) 748,451 706,011 Combined 3,224 3,597
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 752 1,449
Elementary 758 804
Total 46,913 50,062
Middle 272 285
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 220 248 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * 1%
Combined 102 161 Instructional aides 9,431 11,372
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1
Other 3 24 Instructional coordinators 492 1,348
Black, non-Hispanic 45 48
Total 1,355 1,522 Administrators 3,316 2,919
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 52 49 Other 33,041 36,632
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 20 Total 46,280 52,271
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 1% English 65% 60%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 63 58
Instructional $2,518,505 $2,935,369 Science 57 45
Noninstructional 380,458 304,938 Social studies 67 60
Support 1,337,205 1,562,258 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 4,236,169 4,268,607 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 86%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,291 $6,567 Algebra
I for high school credit 14% 11%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 78%

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced- Low-poverty schools 90%

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 443,102
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 38%
1993-94 2000-01
13% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 8%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 61 64
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 53 59
49%
0-34% 170 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 235 Proficient level or above 15% 20%
50-74% 485 Basic level or above 40 49
Title I allocation 2001-02 $152,145,672 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 619 Proficient level or above 7% 16%
Basic level or above 38 57
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
13 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
48 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Louisiana
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Louisiana Educational Assessment Program, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Louisiana’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 61% 55% 53%
See http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/pair/1989.asp for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 52 42 38
system. Migrant students 51 45 42
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Louisiana Educational Assessment Program Students with disabilities 30 14 8
State student achievement levels: Unsatisfactory, Approaching Basic, Basic, Advanced, Students with limited English proficiency 56 36 31
Black, non-Hispanic students 47 35 33
Mastery
Hispanic students 68 57 49
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 75 71 68
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 4 Reading 36.9% 36.9%
Mathematics 30.1 30.1 75% 59 61 2002
Grade 8 Reading 36.9 36.9 57 51 48 55 56 52 53 2001
Mathematics 30.1 30.1 50%
High school Reading 36.9 36.9
Mathematics 30.1 30.1 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 780 (83%) 1,162 (95%) 49 (72%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 60% 52% 59%
Year 1 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 51 39 45
Year 2 0 0 0 Migrant students 56 53 59
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 35 18 16
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 61 47 53
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 43 32 38
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 68 54 57
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 76 70 75

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Attendance 90% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Non-dropout rate 90% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
54 50 60 59 2001
Title I school choice: n/a n/a
50% 46 41 52 51 47
Supplemental educational services: n/a n/a
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

49
 Maine http://www.state.me.us/education
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 226 282 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,036 1,503 teachers (CCD) Elementary 6,658 6,964
K-8 152,981 138,124 Middle 2,835 3,462
9-12 59,632 61,873 High 3,822 4,475
Total (K-12) 212,613 199,997 Combined 329 364
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,700 1,572
Elementary 455 418
Total 15,344 16,837
Middle 125 126
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 106 111 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native n/a 1%
Combined 14 16 Instructional aides 3,452 5,903
Asian/Pacific Islander n/a 1
Other 2 1 Instructional coordinators 118 218
Black, non-Hispanic n/a 2
Total 702 672 Administrators 1,287 1,493
Hispanic n/a 1
White, non-Hispanic n/a 96 Other 8,664 10,127
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 13,521 17,741
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 16%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 1% English 81% 71%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 68 64
Instructional $1,035,170 $1,208,176 Science 67 63
Noninstructional 56,523 60,634 Social studies 72 56
Support 455,300 543,988 Migrant students
4% 5%
Total 1,546,993 1,812,798 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 Not Available
Per-pupil expenditures $7,129 $8,818 Algebra
I for high school credit 25% 21%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 62,047
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 48%
1993-94 2000-01
8% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 3% 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 75 76
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 50 54
44%
0-34% 296 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 193 Proficient level or above 41% 36%
50-74% 147 Basic level or above 75 71
Title I allocation 2001-02 $37,942,178 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 16 Proficient level or above 31% 29%
Basic level or above 77 74
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
20 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
50 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Maine
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Maine Educational Assessment, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Maine’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 49% 45% 46%
See http://www.state.me.us/education/profiles/getprofiles.htm for more details on the statewide ac- Economically disadvantaged students 39 27 25
countability system. Migrant students n/a 25 16
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) Students with disabilities 10 7 5
State student achievement levels: Does Not Meet the Standard, Partially Meets the Standard, Students with limited English proficiency 29 18 12
Black, non-Hispanic students 30 26 22
Meets the Standard, Exceeds the Standard
Hispanic students 40 41 29
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 50 45 47
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 4 Reading 34% 34%
Mathematics 12 12 75% 2002
Grade 8 Reading 35 35 51 49 49 52 53 2001
Mathematics 13 13 50% 41 43 45 46
High school Reading 44 44
Mathematics 11 11 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 28% 18% 20%
Year 1 6 (*) 10 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 20 9 8
Year 2 0 0 0 Migrant students 20 7 <5
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 8 <5 <5
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 18 12 <5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 7 6 65
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 22 10 10
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 29 18 20

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Average daily attendance Meet or progress toward 96%. Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Average daily attendance Meet or progress toward 96%. Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a 75% 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 0 –
28
Supplemental educational services: 0 –
25% 23 23 20 21 18 20 19 20
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

51
 Maryland http://www.msde.state.md.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 24 24 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 17,984 20,397 teachers (CCD) Elementary 21,532 26,487
K-8 544,839 587,066 Middle 9,507 11,896
9-12 197,072 253,506 High 10,733 14,104
Total (K-12) 741,911 840,572 Combined 295 638
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 2,104 2,258
Elementary 799 862
Total 44,171 55,382
Middle 209 241
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 158 205 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 7 23 Instructional aides 7,277 9,726
Asian/Pacific Islander 4% 5%
Other 2 28 Instructional coordinators 669 948
Black, non-Hispanic 34 37
Total 1,175 1,359 Administrators 3,155 3,963
Hispanic 3 6
White, non-Hispanic 59 52 Other 27,481 32,623
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 38,582 47,260
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 2% 3% English 86% 71%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 73 68
Instructional $3,700,987 $4,653,921 Science 86 84
Noninstructional 310,379 355,058 Social studies 92 91
Support 2,111,805 2,471,745 Migrant students
* *
Total 6,123,170 7,480,724 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
65%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,926 $8,692 Algebra
I for high school credit 41% 32%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 47%
Low-poverty schools 76%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 265,989
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 56%
1993-94 2000-01
6% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 79 79
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 55 55
37%
0-34% 730 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 205 Proficient level or above 26% 32%
50-74% 245 Basic level or above 55 62
Title I allocation 2001-02 $153,983,710 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 155 Proficient level or above 24% 30%
Basic level or above 57 67
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
24 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
52 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Maryland
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Maryland School Assessments (MSA), used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Maryland’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, Reading
and 10. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 58% 60% 61%
See http://mdreportcard.org/ for more details on the statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 37 36 38
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Maryland School Assessments (MSA) Migrant students 31 13 33
State student achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 25 20 22
Students with limited English proficiency 18 13 15
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 41 40 41
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 39 45 45
White, non-Hispanic students 72 74 75
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 3 Reading 40% 40% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 47.4 47.4 100%
Grade 8 Reading 43 43
2003
Mathematics 19 19 75% n/a 2002
58 60 61 n/a 2001
High school Reading 42.9 42.9
Mathematics 20.9 20.9 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP 188 (40%) 871 (65%) 0 Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 19 (4%) 511 (38%) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 26 (1%) 48 (4%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 65% 40% 43%
Corrective action 14 (*) 19 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 45 16 20
Restructuring 61 (13%) 64 (5%) 0 Migrant students 52 25 n/a
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 37 8 14
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 38 20 29
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 47 18 17
Hispanic students 53 27 30
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 79 54 58
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 94% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 94% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 90% Met 100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
75% n/a 2002
Title I school choice: 914 1% 65
n/a 2001
Supplemental educational services: 5,077 4% 43
50% 40
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
25%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.
0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

53
 Massachusetts http://www.doe.mass.edu
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 262 350 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 13,178 22,803 teachers (CCD) Elementary n/a n/a
K-8 625,344 678,247 Middle n/a n/a
9-12 232,208 281,939 High n/a n/a
Total (K-12) 857,552 960,186 Combined n/a n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 1,170 1,205
Total n/a n/a
Middle 290 325
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 226 296 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 26 64 Instructional aides 10,611 19,945
Asian/Pacific Islander 4% 5%
Other 3 4 Instructional coordinators 957 3,603
Black, non-Hispanic 8 9
Total 1,715 1,894 Administrators 3,043 3,918
Hispanic 9 11
White, non-Hispanic 79 75 Other 30,819 42,264
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 47 Total 45,430 69,730
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 15% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 5% 5% English 89% 83%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 76 73
Instructional $4,351,014 $6,340,143 Science 89 79
Noninstructional 251,143 309,134 Social studies 87 87
Support 2,614,695 3,308,015 Migrant students
* *
Total 7,216,853 9,957,292 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 96%
Per-pupil expenditures $8,223 $10,232 Algebra
I for high school credit 41% 33%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 93%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced- Low-poverty schools Not available
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 257,359
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal
1993-94 2000-01
6% 51%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 4% 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 80 79
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 65 69
43%
0-34% 1,281 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 146 Proficient level or above 36% 40%
50-74% 247 Basic level or above 69 73
Title I allocation 2001-02 $220,646,251 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 218 Proficient level or above 28% 38%
Basic level or above 68 76
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
2 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
54 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent

Massachusetts
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, used for NCLB
See Appendix B for Massachusetts’s definitions of proficient for English Language Arts in grades 4, 7, accountability
and 10 and mathematics for grades in grades 4, 8, and 10. English or Language Arts
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 High school
See http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/staterc/ for more details on the statewide accountability system. All students 56% 66% 61%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Economically disadvantaged students 30 37 31
System Migrant students 25 16 23
State student achievement levels: Failing (High school) / Warning (Elementary), Needs Im- Students with disabilities 26 29 26
Students with limited English proficiency 16 19 12
provement, Proficient, Advanced
Black, non-Hispanic students 30 39 35
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 26 31 26
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 65 75 69
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 English Language Arts 70.7 CPI 75 CPI 100% 2003
Mathematics 53.0 60.8
75% 67 64 66 2002
Grade 7 English Language Arts 70.7 75 59 61 2001
51 54 56 51
Grade 8 Mathematics 53.0 60.8 50%
High school English Language Arts 70.7 75
Mathematics 53.0 60.8 25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 7 High School
Made AYP n/a 937 (50%) 79 (23%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 40% 37% 51%
Year 1 n/a 256 (14%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 18 13 27
Year 2 n/a 170 (9%) 0 Migrant students 17 9 17
Corrective action n/a 38 (2%) 0 Students with disabilities 18 8 21
Restructuring n/a 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 14 11 27
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 15 11 24
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 15 11 21
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 48 44 58

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance 92% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance 92% Met
High school indicator: Competency determination 70% Met 75% 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50% 39 40 45 44 51
Title I school choice: 554 * 34 34 34 37
Supplemental educational services: 6,589 3%
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 4 Grade 7 High School

55
 Michigan http://www.mde.state.mi.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 556 554 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 11,704 24,133 teachers (CCD) Elementary 35,068 37,522
K-8 1,106,414 1,194,167 Middle 15,166 18,021
9-12 423,081 515,519 High 20,508 22,119
Total (K-12) 1,529,495 1,709,686 Combined 1,019 2,202
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 8,506 9,732
Elementary 1,864 2,139
Total 80,267 89,595
Middle 534 639
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 540 663 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 48 185 Instructional aides 12,629 22,664
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2
Other 16 245 Instructional coordinators 915 2,988
Black, non-Hispanic 17 20
Total 3,002 3,871 Administrators 6,599 7,382
Hispanic 2 4
White, non-Hispanic 78 72 Other 68,873 64,464
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 191 Total 89,016 97,498
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 3% 3% English 67% 64%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 61 68
Instructional $7,286,286 $8,598,644 Science 73 72
Noninstructional 365,422 459,635 Social studies 88 66
Support 4,915,682 5,916,871 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 12,567,391 14,975,150 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
90%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,858 $10,232 Algebra
I for high school credit 29% 21%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 90%
Low-poverty schools 99%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 553,124
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 28% 1993-94 2000-01
7%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 74% 75%
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 60 54
65%
0-34% 1,785 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 583 Proficient level or above n/a 32%
50-74% 646 Basic level or above n/a 64
Title I allocation 2001-02 $420,799,581 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 361 Proficient level or above 28% 28%
Basic level or above 67 68
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
496 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
56 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Michigan
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Michigan Educational Assessment Program, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Michigan’s definitions of proficient for reading/language arts and mathematics for Reading or language arts
grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 High school
All students 66% 59% 64%
See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/State_Report_Card_2003-04_120358_7.doc for more Economically disadvantaged students 46 37 42
details on the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 54 29 22
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Michigan Educational Assessment Program Students with disabilities 53 42 26
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Met Expectations, Exceeds Expectations Students with limited English proficiency 40 20 25
Black, non-Hispanic students 42 34 41
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 49 45 51
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 67 67 69
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading/language arts 38% 38% 100%
Mathematics 47 47 2003
Grade 7 Reading/language arts 31 31 75% 66 71 64 2002
Grade 8 Mathematics 31 31 57 51 59 n/a 2001
High school Reading/language arts 42 42 50%
Mathematics 33 33
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 7 High School
Made AYP 2,090 (39%) 3,168 (89%) n/a
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 35 (1%) 54 (2%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 66% 54% 56%
Year 2 79 (2%) 120 (3%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 51 33 20
Corrective action 65 (1%) 99 (3%) 0 Migrant students 47 22 <5
Restructuring 66 (1%) 101 (3%) 0 Students with disabilities 55 37 14
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 289 (5%) 438 (12%) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 51 30 29
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 45 26 17
“made” above) Hispanic students 52 35 30
White, non-Hispanic students 73 61 58
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 80% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 80% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate 80% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 65 66 67 2002
53 54 56 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 370 *
50%
Supplemental educational services: 11,444 2%
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

57
 Minnesota http://www.educ.state.mn.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 400 417 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 6,656 10,037 teachers (CCD) Elementary 21,654 24,061
K-8 570,324 557,664 Middle 7,969 9,584
9-12 233,253 279,190 High 12,690 16,025
Total (K-12) 803,577 836,854 Combined 355 1,501
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 4,288 1,636
Elementary 888 1,024
Total 46,956 52,808
Middle 220 290
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 371 646 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% 2%
Combined 15 207 Instructional aides 6,089 14,758
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 5
Other 3 15 Instructional coordinators 487 439
Black, non-Hispanic 4 7
Total 1,497 2,182 Administrators 2,872 3,220
Hispanic 2 4
White, non-Hispanic 89 81 Other 18,455 34,086
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 89 Total 27,903 52,503
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 3% 6% English 84% 92%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 94 90
Instructional $3,530,240 $4,192,253 Science 97 93
Noninstructional 224,024 281,475 Social studies 89 94
Support 1,786,512 2,112,832 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 5,540,775 6,586,560 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
96%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,839 $7,736 Algebra
I for high school credit 34% 22%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 94%
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 231,450
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 33%
1993-94 2000-01
6% High
school dropout rate 5% 4%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES)

participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 89 84
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 53 64
State
61% NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 1,323
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 379 Proficient level or above 33% 37%
50-74% 241 Basic level or above 65 69
Title I allocation 2001-02 $112,964,619 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 195 Proficient level or above 34% 44%
Basic level or above 75 82
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
44 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
58 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Minnesota
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Minnesota’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grade 3. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade Grade
See http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_sch_dist_data.htm for more details on the statewide All students 76% - -
accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 57 - -
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) Migrant students 36 - -
State student achievement levels: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 Students with disabilities 44 - -
Students with limited English proficiency 38 - -
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 47 - -
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 47 - -
White, non-Hispanic students 82 - -
objective starting point (2002-03) L
Grade 3 Reading 62.9% 62.9% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 65.4 65.4 100% 2003
Grade Reading 76
Mathematics 75% 2002
Grade Reading 2001
Mathematics 50% 49 49

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts n/a n/a
0%
Made AYP 824 (90%) 1,692 (92%) 361 (89%) Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 23 (3%) 23 (1%) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 15 (2%) 15 (1%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade Grade
All students 74% - -
Corrective action 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 57 - -
Restructuring 0 0 0 Migrant students 38 - -
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 30 (3%) 30 (2%) 0 Students with disabilities 48 - -
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 43 - -
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 44 - -
Hispanic students 47 - -
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 81 - -
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 94.5% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 94.5% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or growth towards 87.4% Met 100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
75% 74 2002
Title I school choice: 306 * 2001
Supplemental educational services: 1,498 1% 53 48
50%

25%

0% n/a n/a
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

59
 Mississippi http://www.mde.k12.ms.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 149 152 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 2,197 1,975 teachers (CCD) Elementary 12,012 12,439
K-8 357,016 349,795 Middle 5,172 7,154
9-12 131,112 126,932 High 6,347 7,839
Total (K-12) 488,128 476,727 Combined 3,301 2,498
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,545 1,669
Elementary 446 443
Total 28,376 31,598
Middle 168 181
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 173 184 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 78 64 Instructional aides 8,886 8,314
Asian/Pacific Islander * 1%
Other 24 15 Instructional coordinators 399 619
Black, non-Hispanic 51% 51
Total 889 887 Administrators 2,311 2,668
Hispanic * 1
White, non-Hispanic 48 47 Other 19,881 22,934
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 1 Total 31,477 34,535
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited * 1% English 66% 55%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 72 60
Instructional $1,364,783 $1,591,250 Science 73 66
Noninstructional 176,634 171,997 Social studies 83 72
Support 667,402 878,870 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 2,208,819 2,642,117 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 85%
Per-pupil expenditures $4,365 $5,354 Algebra
I for high school credit 18% 16%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 81%
Low-poverty schools 87%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 321,712
(CCD, 2001-02)
(CCD)
Outcomes
Local 1993-94 2000-01
31%
Federal Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 6% 5%
15% participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 64 60
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 69 63
State
54% 0-34% 44 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 140 Proficient level or above 18% 18%
50-74% 306 Basic level or above 45 48
Title I allocation 2001-02 $130,431,212 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 393 Proficient level or above 7% 12%
Basic level or above 36 47
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
4 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
60 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Mississippi
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Mississippi Curriculum Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Mississippi’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 87% 57% 35%
See http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/Account/RC4B/RC4B.htm for more details on the statewide account- Economically disadvantaged students 82 43 20
ability system. Migrant students 76 40 38
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Mississippi Curriculum Test Students with disabilities 83 42 13
State student achievement levels: Minimal, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 89 34 47
Black, non-Hispanic students 80 40 18
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 91 56 35
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 95 73 50
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 66% 66% 100%
Mathematics 49 49 84 87 2003
Grade 8 Reading 30 30 75% 2002
Mathematics 23 23 57 n/a 2001
High school Reading 16 16 50% 48
35
Mathematics 5 5 28
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 0 650 (75%) 70 (46%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 74% 48% 45%
Year 2 1 (*) 1 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 65 35 30
Corrective action 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Migrant students 55 45 64
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 70 34 26
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 66 33 36
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 61 31 27
“made” above) Hispanic students 80 49 54
White, non-Hispanic students 88 65 60
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance rate 93% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance rate 93% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate 72% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 72 74 2002
n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 7 *
50% 45 48 45
Supplemental educational services: 200 *
25%

0% n/a n/a
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

61
 Missouri http://services.dese.state.mo.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 541 524 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 23,597 28,614 teachers (CCD) Elementary 26,009 31,266
K-8 601,691 622,524 Middle 9,764 12,614
9-12 241,874 269,997 High 14,939 17,666
Total (K-12) 843,565 892,521 Combined 375 2,617
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 1,176 1,253
Total 51,087 64,163
Middle 314 375
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 482 495 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 26 115 Instructional aides 6,430 11,884
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
Other 23 48 Instructional coordinators 1,256 1,057
Black, non-Hispanic 16 18
Total 2,021 2,286 Administrators 3,048 4,411
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 82 78 Other 46,481 44,055
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 25 Total 57,215 61,407
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 1% English 81% 64%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 89 52
Instructional $3,092,460 $3,954,002 Science 70 70
Noninstructional 225,296 288,301 Social studies 84 80
Support 1,779,459 2,249,300 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 5,097,216 6,491,603 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 95%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,821 $7,135 Algebra
I for high school credit 27% 26%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 90%
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 333,964
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 56% 1993-94 2000-01

8% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 7% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 77 75
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 51 53
36%
0-34% 913 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 560 Proficient level or above 31% 34%
50-74% 587 Basic level or above 62 68
Title I allocation 2001-02 $163,743,528 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 225 Proficient level or above 22% 28%
Basic level or above 64 71
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1 school did not report.
K n/a = Not available
62 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Missouri
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Missouri Assessment Program, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Missouri’s definitions of proficient for communication arts for grades 3, 7, and high Communication arts
school and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 7 High school
All students 34% 32% 22%
See http://dese.mo.gov/commissioner/statereportcard/ for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 22 18 10
system. Migrant students 23 7 5
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Students with disabilities 18 6 <5
State student achievement levels: Step One, Progressing, Nearing Proficient, Proficient, Students with limited English proficiency 14 9 <5
Black, non-Hispanic students 16 11 6
Advanced
Hispanic students 22 25 14
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 39 37 24
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Communication arts percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 4 Communication arts 18.4% 19.4%
Mathematics 8.3 9.3 75% 2002
Grade 7 Communication arts 18.4 19.4 2001
Mathematics 8.3 9.3 50%
High school Communication arts 18.4 19.4 32 36 34 34 32 32
Mathematics 8.3 9.3 25% 22 24 22

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 3 Grade 7 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 735 (63%) 1,056 (51%) 220 (42%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 37% 14% 12%
Year 1 32 (3%) 32 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 24 6 <5
Year 2 0 0 0 Migrant students 21 6 7
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 20 <5 <5
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 21 13 <5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 18 <5 <5
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 27 8 8
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 42 16 14

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle school indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% n/a
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a
Note: Other indicator was not applied to AYP decisions in 2002-03, except in the case of safe harbor. 75% 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50%
Title I school choice: n/a – 37 38 37
Supplemental educational services: 992 1%
25% 14 14 14 13 11 12
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

63
 Montana http://www.opi.state.mt.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 495 452 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 483 665 teachers (CCD) Elementary 4,817 4,717
K-8 115,509 100,296 Middle 2,083 2,166
9-12 46,111 48,727 High 2,994 3,425
Total (K-12) 161,620 149,023 Combined 7 n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 486 448
Total 9,901 10,308
Middle 236 240
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 172 175 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 10% 11%
Combined 1 n/a Instructional aides 1,745 2,368
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 2 2 Instructional coordinators 139 171
Black, non-Hispanic * 1
Total 897 865 Administrators 653 649
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 88 85 Other 6,260 5,829
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 8,797 9,017
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 5% 5% English 75% 71%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 77 68
Instructional $658,063 $664,569 Science 76 74
Noninstructional 44,790 44,811 Social studies 79 67
Support 349,493 363,625 Migrant students
1% 2%
Total 1,052,345 1,073,005 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools Not Available

Per-pupil expenditures $6,456 $7,062 Algebra
I for high school credit 22% 20%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools Not Available
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 47,877
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
39%
1993-94 2000-01
Federal
13% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 85% 80
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 54 54
State
48% NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 442
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 228 Proficient level or above 35% 35%
50-74% 119 Basic level or above 69 69
Title I allocation 2001-02 $34,294,073 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 60 Proficient level or above 32% 35%
Basic level or above 75 79
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
16 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
64 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Montana
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Montana Comprehensive Assessment System, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Montana’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, Reading
and 11. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 77% 71% 78%
See http://www.opi.state.mt.us/ReportCard/Index.html for more details on the statewide account- Economically disadvantaged students 65 55 64
ability system. Migrant students 62 59 50
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Montana Comprehensive Assessment System Students with disabilities 36 26 32
State student achievement levels: Nearing Proficient, Novice, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 26 18 33
Black, non-Hispanic students 78 59 80
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 73 63 74
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 81 75 82
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading n/a n/a 100%
Mathematics n/a n/a 79 2003
77 78 78 78
Grade 8 Reading n/a n/a 75% 73 73 71 71 2002
Mathematics n/a n/a 2001
Grade 11 Reading n/a n/a 50%
Mathematics n/a n/a
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP Outcomes and Consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
Made AYP 502 (78%) 693 (81%) 321 (73%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 0 0 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
Year 2 0 0 0 All students 75% 70% 77%
Economically disadvantaged students 64 52 61
Corrective action 0 0 0
Migrant students 65 64 37
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 40 23 27
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 32 17 37
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 73 61 68
“made” above) Hispanic students 71 59 70
White, non-Hispanic students 78 74 80
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 80% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 80% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 80% Met
75 69 70 76 75 77
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 73 69 68 2002
2001
Title I school choice: 14 *
Supplemental educational services: 10 *
50%

*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
25%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.
0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11

65
 Nebraska http://www.nde.state.ne.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 695 557 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 3,577 5,491 teachers (CCD) Elementary 9,874 10,447
K-8 199,849 189,622 Middle 2,796 2,913
9-12 81,671 90,289 High 6,874 7,072
Total (K-12) 281,520 279,911 Combined 76 141
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 925 806
Total 19,620 20,573
Middle 102 98
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 316 300 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 2%
Combined n/a 42 Instructional aides 3,325 4,692
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2
Other 3 4 Instructional coordinators 212 408
Black, non-Hispanic 6 7
Total 1,346 1,250 Administrators 1,540 1,573
Hispanic 4 9
White, non-Hispanic 88 81 Other 12,139 13,027
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 17,216 19,700
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 4% English 83% 84%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 83 89
Instructional $1,205,147 $1,390,961 Science 79 80
Noninstructional 164,796 156,434 Social studies 90 81
Support 568,224 659,551 Migrant students
2% 6%
Total 1,938,168 2,205,946 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 90%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,798 $7,741 Algebra
I for high school credit 25% 28%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 82%
Low-poverty schools 93%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 92,423
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 57% 1993-94 2000-01

8% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 89 84
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 60 59
36%
0-34% 707 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 269 Proficient level or above 34% 32%
50-74% 203 Basic level or above 66 66
Title I allocation 2001-02 $37,640,058 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 55 Proficient level or above 31% 32%
Basic level or above 76 74
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
16 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
66 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Nebraska
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System, used for
See Appendix B for Nebraska’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and NCLB accountability
high school. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
See http://reportcard.nde.state.ne.us/Main/PDFDownload.asp for more details on the statewide ac- All students 83% 80% 77%
countability system. Economically disadvantaged students 72 67 60
State assessment for NCLB accountability: School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Migrant students 60 46 33
Reporting System (STARS) Students with disabilities 56 42 35
Students with limited English proficiency 51 44 36
State student achievement levels: Basic, Progressing, Proficient, Advanced
Black, non-Hispanic students 66 62 53
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 71 62 51
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 86 83 80
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 62% 62% 100% 2003
Mathematics 65 65 83 80 77
75% 2002
Grade 8 Reading 61 61 62 60 63
Mathematics 58 58
n/a 2001
High school Reading 66 66 50%
Mathematics 62 62
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 0 275 (50%) 50 (31%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 82% 75% 65%
Year 1 2 (*) 2 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 71 60 48
Year 2 1 (*) 1 (*) 0 Migrant students 63 46 32
Corrective action 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 57 36 23
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 58 37 32
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 68 55 36
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 70 53 38
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 84 79 69

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Writing assessment Meet or progress toward 62% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Writing assessment Meet or progress toward 62% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 83.97% Met 78 82 72 75 71 65 2002
75%
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students n/a 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 0 –
Supplemental educational services: 0 –
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

67
 Nevada http://www.nde.state.nv.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 17 17 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,237 2,426 teachers (CCD) Elementary 6,968 10,484
K-8 173,091 267,067 Middle 2,113 3,662
9-12 60,727 98,118 High 2,584 4,413
Total (K-12) 233,818 365,185 Combined 84 116
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 255 326
Total 11,749 18,675
Middle 57 84
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 54 99 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% 2%
Combined 4 10 Instructional aides 1,257 3,220
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 6
Other 2 8 Instructional coordinators 87 254
Black, non-Hispanic 9 10
Total 372 527 Administrators 919 1,285
Hispanic 14 29
White, non-Hispanic 70 53 Other 7,576 8,645
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 13 Total 9,839 13,404
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 6% 14% English 85% 70%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 74 38
Instructional $837,716 $1,353,806 Science 88 78
Noninstructional 47,856 71,003 Social studies 86 73
Support 521,430 74,190 Migrant students
1% *
Total 1,407,001 1,498,999 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 50%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,967 $6,079 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 32%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 50%
Low-poverty schools 62%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 125,660
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 62%
1993-94 2000-01
6%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 10% 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 73 70
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 38 40
32%
0-34% 202 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 84 Proficient level or above n/a 20%
50-74% 87 Basic level or above n/a 52
Title I allocation 2001-02 $40,690,971 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 70 Proficient level or above n/a 21%
Basic level or above n/a 60
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
84 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
68 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Nevada
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Nevada Criterion Reference Tests, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Nevada’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 51% 56% 81%
See http://www.nevadareportcard.com/ for more details on the statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 35 45 72
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Nevada Criterion Reference Tests Migrant students 16 0 77
State student achievement levels: Approaches Standard, Developing/Emergent, Meets Stan- Students with disabilities 17 15 39
dard, Exceeds Standard Students with limited English proficiency 24 17 35
Black, non-Hispanic students 37 43 72
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 34 41 67
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 62 65 89
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 Reading 32.4% 27.5% 100%
Mathematics 37.3 34.5 2003
81
Grade 8 Reading 37 37 75% 2002
Mathematics 38 32 56 55 n/a 2001
51 51
High school Reading 91 73.5 50%
Mathematics 58 42.8
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0% n/a
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP n/a 330 (60%) 0
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 n/a 18 (3%) 1 (6%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade High school
All students 51% - 55%
Year 2 n/a 7 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 37 - 38
Corrective action n/a 0 0 Migrant students 16 - 27
Restructuring n/a 0 0 Students with disabilities 17 - 15
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 30 - 18
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 35 - 31
“made” above) Hispanic students 37 - 33
White, non-Hispanic students 61 - 66
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 50% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
50 51 55 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 252 *
50% 39
Supplemental educational services: 259 *
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0% n/a
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

69
 New Hampshire http://www.ed.state.nh.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 178 178 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,292 1,923 teachers (CCD) Elementary 5,767 6,845
K-8 134,367 141,139 Middle 2,711 3,619
9-12 49,098 63,988 High 3,493 4,465
Total (K-12) 183,465 205,127 Combined n/a n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 293 298
Total 11,971 14,929
Middle 91 96
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 77 78 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined n/a n/a Instructional aides 2,902 6,050
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 2%
Other n/a 1 Instructional coordinators 128 196
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 461 473 Administrators 807 1,028
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 97 94 Other 6,093 7,836
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 0 Total 9,930 15,110
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 2% English 90% 73%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 76 69
Instructional $827,873 $1,064,917 Science 91 90
Noninstructional 45,576 52,283 Social studies 90 88
Support 415,900 524,179 Migrant students
* *
Total 1,289,349 1,641,379 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 86%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,955 $7,935 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 27%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 84%
Low-poverty schools 88%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 32,132
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 43%
5%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 81% 78
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 56 59
52%
0-34% 404 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 39 Proficient level or above 36% 40%
50-74% 14 Basic level or above 70 75
Title I allocation 2001-02 $29,733,465 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 1 Proficient level or above n/a 35%
Basic level or above n/a 79
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
15 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
70 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Hampshire
New
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
New Hampshire Educational Improvement Assessment Program, used for
See Appendix B for New Hampshire’s definitions of basic for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 6, NCLB accountability
and high school. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 6 High school
See http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/Assessment/materials04.htm All students 77% 72% 70%
for more details on the statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 58 53 51
State assessment for NCLB accountability: New Hampshire Educational Improvement Migrant students # # #
Assessment Program Students with disabilities 31 26 25
Students with limited English proficiency 43 26 16
State student achievement levels: Novice, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Black, non-Hispanic students 62 60 47
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 57 54 47
White, non-Hispanic students 77 72 71
2001-02 Annual measurable Target
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 Reading 60% 60% 100% 2003
Mathematics 64 64 77 n/a 2002
Grade 6 Reading 60 60 75% 72 70
Mathematics 64 64
n/a 2001
High school Reading 70 70 50%
Mathematics 52 52
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0%
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 3 Grade 6 High School
Made AYP 201 (75%) 321 (69%) 118 (73%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 6 High school
All students 80% 74% 63%
Year 1 4 (*) 4 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 67 57 44
Year 2 2 (*) 2 (*) 0 Migrant students # # #
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 52 35 20
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 58 36 29
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 64 51 41
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 64 56 41
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 80 74 64

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met 80
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 75% Met 74 n/a 2002
75% 63
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students n/a 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 1 *
Supplemental educational services: 15 *
25%

0%
Grade 3 Grade 6 High School

71
 New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/education
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 583 598 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 9,225 21,590 teachers (CCD) Elementary 37,425 49,547
K-8 775,959 903,367 Middle 15,473 21,307
9-12 288,263 369,115 High 23,432 29,877
Total (K-12) 1,064,222 1,272,482 Combined 141 392
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 8,094 5,881
Elementary 1,457 1,520
Total 84,564 107,004
Middle 393 431
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 310 363 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 3 12 Instructional aides 12,806 22,671
Asian/Pacific Islander 5% 7%
Other 124 88 Instructional coordinators 1,378 1,464
Black, non-Hispanic 19 18
Total 2,287 2,414 Administrators 6,236 6,774
Hispanic 13 17
White-non-Hispanic 63 59 Other 55,218 61,468
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 50 Total 75,638 92,377
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 14% 14%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 4% 4% English 87% 74%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 69 90
Instructional $8,015,197 $9,358,608 Science 82 93
Noninstructional 428,378 488,508 Social studies 93 93
Support 4,931,955 5,975,494 Migrant students
* *
Total 13,375,530 15,822,610 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 Not Available
Per-pupil expenditures $11,618 $11,793 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 26%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 371,392
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 53%
1993-94 2000-01
4% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 4% 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 83 85
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 64 64
State
43% 0-34% NAEP state results (NCES)
1,638
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 196 Proficient level or above 33% 39%
50-74% 290 Basic level or above 65 70
Title I allocation 2001-02 $257,022,021 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 289 Proficient level or above n/a 33%
Basic level or above n/a 71
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1 school did not report.
K n/a = Not available
72 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 New Jersey
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
New Jersey Skills and Knowledge Assessment, Grade Eight Proficiency
See Appendix B for New Jersey’s definitions of proficient for language arts literacy and mathematics for Assessment, and High School Proficiency Assessment used for NCLB
grades 4, 8, and high school. accountability
Language arts literacy
See http://education.state.nj.us/rc/ for more details on the statewide accountability system.
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
State assessment for NCLB accountability: New Jersey Skills and Knowledge Assessment All students 78% 74% 80%
State student achievement levels: Partially Proficient, Proficient, Advanced Proficient Economically disadvantaged students 58 48 57
Migrant students 37 17 61
NCLB Accountability Goals Students with disabilities 42 28 35
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Students with limited English proficiency 31 14 18
objective starting point (2002-03) Black, non-Hispanic students 58 48 61
Grade 4 Language arts literacy 68% 68% Hispanic students 63 55 63
White, non-Hispanic students 87 85 88
Mathematics 53 53
Grade 8 Language arts literacy 58 58 Student achievement trend: Language arts literacy percent proficient level or above
100% 2003
Mathematics 39 39 81 80
79 79 78
High school Language arts literacy 73 73 75% 73 73 74 74 2002
Mathematics 55 55 2001
50%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 25%
Made AYP 1,115 (81%) 1,443 (59%) n/a
Identified for improvement: 0%
Year 1 14 (1%) 14 (1%) 0
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Year 2 250 (18%) 50 (2%) 0
Mathematics
Corrective action 0 0 0
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 68% 57% 66%
Restructuring 0 0 0 Economically disadvantaged students 47 30 36
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Migrant students 39 13 37
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with disabilities 40 16 23
“made” above) Students with limited English proficiency 34 19 22
Black, non-Hispanic students 42 25 33
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Hispanic students 53 36 42
Elementary/Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 90% Met White, non-Hispanic students 79 69 77
High school indicator: Dropout rate Reduce by .5% per year until prior year’s Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
dropout percentage is reached
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 100% 2003
Title I school choice: 0 0
79 2002
75% 66 66 68 62 69 66
Supplemental educational services: 11,097 4% 58 57 2001
50%

25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

73
 New Mexico http://sde.state.nm.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 88 89 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 1,933 3,529 teachers (CCD) Elementary 9,029 10,279
K-8 224,354 220,967 Middle 4,020 4,685
9-12 87,768 95,767 High 4,338 5,657
Total (K-12) 312,122 316,734 Combined 54 218
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 964 334
Elementary 420 444
Total 18,404 21,172
Middle 139 163
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 125 161 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 10% 11%
Combined 9 24 Instructional aides 4,066 5,158
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 15 9 Instructional coordinators 468 660
Black, non-Hispanic 2 2
Total 708 801 Administrators 1,278 1,849
Hispanic 46 52
White-non-Hispanic 40 34 Other 12,478 14,987
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 27 Total 18,290 22,654
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 25% 20% English 76% 65%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 69 52
Instructional $992,210 $1,232,319 Science 71 55
Noninstructional 97,902 101,976 Social studies 60 39
Support 604,163 869,870 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 1,694,275 2,204,165 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 77%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,256 $6,882 Algebra
I for high school credit 22% 20%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 71%
Low-poverty schools 77%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 182,469
(CCD, 2001-02)
Federal (CCD)
Outcomes
14%

1993-94 2000-01
Local Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 8% 5%
14% participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 67 66
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 54 59
State
72% 0-34% 155 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 86 Proficient level or above 21% 19%
50-74% 245 Basic level or above 49 48
Title I allocation 2001-02 $82,193,013 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 314 Proficient level or above 14% 15%
Basic level or above 51 52
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1 school did not report.
K n/a = Not available
74 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 New Mexico
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
See Appendix B for New Mexico’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, New Mexico Standards Based Assessment, not used for NCLB accountability
and 10. Reading
State assessment for NCLB accountability: – Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
State student achievement levels: Beginning Proficiency, Nearing Proficient, Proficient, All students 70% 69% 91%
Advanced Economically disadvantaged students 53 50 81
Migrant students 35 33 51
NCLB Accountability Goals Students with disabilities 44 41 70
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Students with limited English proficiency 37 30 68
Black, non-Hispanic students 63 63 91
objective starting point (2002-03) Hispanic students 64 61 88
Grade 4 Reading n/a n/a White, non-Hispanic students 83 84 98
Mathematics n/a n/a Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 8 Reading n/a n/a
Mathematics n/a n/a 100% 91 2003
Grade 10 Reading n/a n/a
75% 70 69 n/a 2002
Mathematics n/a n/a n/a 2001
50%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 25%
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a
Identified for improvement: 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Year 1 n/a n/a n/a
Year 2 n/a n/a n/a Mathematics
Corrective action n/a n/a n/a Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Restructuring n/a n/a n/a All students 65% 64% 84%
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Economically disadvantaged students 49 45 71
after missing twice or more, includes total Migrant students 32 34 56
“made” above) Students with disabilities 45 37 56
Other indicator, 2002-03 State Target State Outcome Students with limited English proficiency 36 30 60
Black, non-Hispanic students 57 54 78
Elementary indicator: n/a n/a n/a Hispanic students 58 55 79
Middle indicator: n/a n/a n/a White, non-Hispanic students 79 80 93
High school indicator: n/a n/a n/a
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
Title I school choice: n/a n/a 100%
Supplemental educational services: n/a n/a 84 2003
75% n/a 2002
65 64
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, n/a 2001
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 50%

25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

75
 New York http://www.nysed.gov
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 714 703 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 31,687 41,752 teachers (CCD) Elementary 82,229 61,708
K-8 1,813,727 1,901,889 Middle 32,788 28,471
9-12 743,933 802,393 High 42,222 38,080
Total (K-12) 2,557,660 2,704,282 Combined 5,027 5,253
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 17,147 77,414
Elementary 2,423 2,521
Total 179,413 210,926
Middle 669 758
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 710 797 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 135 152 Instructional aides 26,272 42,479
Asian/Pacific Islander 5% 6%
Other 139 242 Instructional coordinators 2,176 2,167
Black, non-Hispanic 20 20
Total 4,076 4,470 Administrators 9,755 11,366
Hispanic 17 19
White-non-Hispanic 58 54 Other 135,987 161,100
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 37 Total 174,190 217,112
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 7% 6% English 89% 81%
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 84 79
Instructional $19,054,911 $22,001,202 Science 85 86
Noninstructional 801,393 866,866 Social studies 87 95
Support 8,384,585 9,350,907 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 28,240,888 32,218,975 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 Not Available
Per-pupil expenditures $10,330 $11,218 Algebra
I for high school credit 10% 9%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 484,488
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 46% 1993-94 2000-01
6%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 68% 62
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 70 64
48%
0-34% 2,031 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 460 Proficient level or above 27% 34%
50-74% 354 Basic level or above 57 67
Title I allocation 2001-02 $1,027,698,775 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 240 Proficient level or above 22% 32%
Basic level or above 61 71
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
1,385 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
76 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 New York
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
New York State Tests, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for New York’s definitions of proficient for English language arts and mathematics for English language arts
grades 4, 8, and high school. Performance index: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 158 136 160
See http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2004/home.shtml for more details on the statewide account- Economically disadvantaged students 142 116 136
ability system. Migrant students 131 100 115
State assessment for NCLB accountability: New York State Tests Students with disabilities 92 69 98
State student achievement levels: Basic, Basic Proficiency, Proficiency, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 116 103 90
Black, non-Hispanic students 137 108 130
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 137 111 126
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 171 151 175
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: English language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 English language arts PI of 123 PI of 123
Mathematics 136 136
Grade 8 English language arts 107 107
Mathematics 81 81
High school English language arts 142 142
Mathematics 132 132

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 194 (7%) 194 (5%) 26 (3%) Performance index: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 173 136 156
Year 2 92 (3%) 92 (2%) 19 (3%)
Economically disadvantaged students 162 109 127
Corrective action 105 (4%) 105 (2%) 0 Migrant students 144 72 127
Restructuring 137 (5%) 137 (3%) 0 Students with disabilities 124 68 99
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 122 67 106
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 152 95 114
“made” above) Hispanic students 157 99 114
White, non-Hispanic students 186 158 173
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Science assessment Performance index of 100 Met
or increase from previous year
High school indicator: Graduation rate n/a n/a
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
Title I school choice: 7,364 1%
Supplemental educational services: 67,180 10%

*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.

77
 North Carolina http://www.ncpublicschools.org
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 121 117 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 8,469 10,310 teachers (CCD) Elementary 33,841 44,233
K-8 798,816 953,657 Middle 15,990 17,507
9-12 305,060 371,987 High 18,559 23,926
Total (K-12) 1,103,876 1,325,644 Combined 778 1,877
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 253 134
Elementary 1,167 1,323
Total 69,421 87,677
Middle 407 464
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 321 359 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% 1%
Combined 29 95 Instructional aides 20,721 27,476
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2
Other 28 4 Instructional coordinators 767 889
Black, non-Hispanic 30 31
Total 1,952 2,245 Administrators 5,228 6,288
Hispanic 1 6
White-non-Hispanic 66 59 Other 36,922 46,998
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 93 Total 63,638 81,651
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 5% English 87% 81%
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 79 64
Instructional $4,046,687 $5,412,927 Science 73 75
Noninstructional 501,891 494,358 Social studies 88 93
Support 2,038,528 2,643,261 Migrant students
1% 2%
Total 6,587,106 8,550,546 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 83%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,812 $6,501 Algebra
I for high school credit 29% 29%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 78%
Low-poverty schools 86%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 452,486
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 27% 1993-94 2000-01

9%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 6%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 70% 67
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 51 65
65%
0-34% 1,034 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 421 Proficient level or above 30% 32%
50-74% 509 Basic level or above 59 65
Title I allocation 2001-02 $214,422,710 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 281 Proficient level or above 20% 32%
Basic level or above 56 71
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
78 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent

North Carolina
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
North Carolina End-of-Grade/Course Tests, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for North Carolina’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, Reading
and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 81% 86% 64%
See http://www.ncreportcards.org/src/stateDetails.jsp?Page=1&pYear=2003-2004 for more details on Economically disadvantaged students 70 74 43
the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 60 57 27
State assessment for NCLB accountability: End-of-Grade Mathematics/Reading Students with disabilities 48 50 21
State student achievement levels: Level I, Level II, Level III, Level IV Students with limited English proficiency 48 41 25
Black, non-Hispanic students 71 76 43
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 64 65 44
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 89 92 75
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 68.9% 68.9% 100% 2003
Mathematics 74.6 74.6
77 81 83 85 86
Grade 8 Reading 68.9 68.9 75% 74 68 69 64 2002
Mathematics 74.6 74.6 2001
High school Reading 52 52 50%
Mathematics 54.9 54.9
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 617 (55%) 1,031 (47%) 2 (2%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 36 (3%) 1,195 (53%) 115 (54%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 92% 82% 69%
Year 2 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 87 70 50
Corrective action 0 0 0 Migrant students 80 64 44
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 71 46 26
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 72 52 41
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 87 69 48
“made” above) Hispanic students 82 68 53
White, non-Hispanic students 95 90 79
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or at least .1% progress Met
toward 90%
100% 87 89 92 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or at least .1% progress Met
80 83 82 76 79
toward 90%. 75% 69 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 337 *
Supplemental educational services: 362 *
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

79
 North Dakota http://www.dpi.state.nd.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 251 222 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 615 773 teachers (CCD) Elementary 3,974 3,880
K-8 83,512 68,316 Middle 848 1,031
9-12 35,000 35,136 High 2,716 2,799
Total (K-12) 118,512 103,452 Combined 94 19
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 123 349
Elementary 352 306
Total 7,755 8,078
Middle 34 38
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 204 181 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 6% 8%
Combined 9 1 Instructional aides 1,290 1,798
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 2 2 Instructional coordinators 58 126
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 601 528 Administrators 654 829
Hispanic 1 1
White-non-Hispanic 91 89 Other 4,023 4,259
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 6,025 7,012
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 7% 6% English 80% 66%
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 87 83
Instructional $410,032 $436,583 Science 85 85
Noninstructional 57,624 54,996 Social studies 77 74
Support 201,080 219,585 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 668,736 711,164 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools 91%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,614 $6,709 Algebra
I for high school credit 20% 18%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 94%
Low-poverty schools 91%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 29,270
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
48% 1993-94 2000-01
Federal
14% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 3% 2%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 88 85
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 68 69
38%
0-34% 300 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 131 Proficient level or above 38% 32%
50-74% 75 Basic level or above 73 69
Title I allocation 2001-02 $26,529,973 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 22 Proficient level or above 33% 36%
Basic level or above 77 81
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
80 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 North Dakota
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
North Dakota State Assessment, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for North Dakota’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, Reading
and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 74% 69% 52%
See http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/profile/0304/ProfileDistrict/99999.pdf for more details on Economically disadvantaged students 64 55 36
the statewide accountability system. Migrant students n/a 42 n/a
State assessment for NCLB accountability: North Dakota State Assessment Students with disabilities 38 22 9
State student achievement levels: Novice, Partially Proficient, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 39 22 7
Black, non-Hispanic students 67 58 24
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 56 58 36
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 77 72 54
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 65.1% 68% 100%
Mathematics 45.7 50.2 2003
Grade 8 Reading 64.1 64.6 75% 74 74 67 2002
59 n/a 2001
Mathematics 33.3 38.9
50% 49 52
High school Reading 42.9 47.7
Mathematics 24.1 30.4
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP n/a 451 (91%) 178 (89%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 23 (5%) 23 (5%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 58% 44% 33%
Year 2 1 (*) 1 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 45 29 18
Corrective action 22 (4%) 22 (4%) 0 Migrant students n/a 8 n/a
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 24 7 <5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 6 (1%) 6 (1%) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 22 9 8
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 40 23 10
“made” above) Hispanic students 42 26 17
White, non-Hispanic students 61 47 34
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance 93% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance 93% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate 89.90% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
57 58 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 0 0 42 44
50%
Supplemental educational services: 118 1% 34 33
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

81
 Ohio http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 611 613 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 17,210 21,632 teachers (CCD) Elementary 45,466 51,851
K-8 1,268,464 1,253,422 Middle 19,770 25,251
9-12 517,122 552,137 High 28,315 32,871
Total (K-12) 1,785,586 1,805,559 Combined 3,365 2,734
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 10,529 12,665
Elementary 2,203 2,208
Total 107,444 125,372
Middle 663 751
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 682 715 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 104 105 Instructional aides 9,804 17,397
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
Other 20 36 Instructional coordinators 383 501
Black, non-Hispanic 15 17
Total 3,672 3,815 Administrators 10,311 13,092
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 83 80 Other 73,886 86,010
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 127 Total 94,384 117,000
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 1% English 74% 54%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 64 77
Instructional $7,319,110 $8,574,310 Science 75 69
Noninstructional 454,180 506,726 Social studies 79 70
Support 4,532,749 5,693,030 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 12,306,038 14,774,066 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
82%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,809 $8,069 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 23%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 78%
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 535,072
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 49%
6%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 81 76
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 51 56
46%
0-34% 1,963 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 511 Proficient level or above n/a 34%
50-74% 485 Basic level or above n/a 68
Title I allocation 2001-02 $341,107,636 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 443 Proficient level or above n/a 30%
Basic level or above n/a 73
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
413 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
82 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Ohio
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Ohio Proficiency Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Ohio’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 6, and 9. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 9
See http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcard/state_report_card/src2004.pdf for more details on the All students 66% 65% 87%
statewide accountability system. Economically disadvantaged students 49 46 75
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Ohio Proficiency Test Migrant students 27 26 45
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 36 30 51
Students with limited English proficiency 42 32 51
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 44 40 75
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 54 48 75
White, non-Hispanic students 72 71 90
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 4 Reading 40.5% 40.5% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 35.9 35.9 100%
Grade 6 Reading 36 36 87 2003
Mathematics 36.8 36.8 75% 66 66 58 2002
Grade 9 Reading 78 78
56 56 65 2001
Mathematics 53.1 53.1 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts n/a n/a
0%
Made AYP 2,027 (78%) 3,031 (80%) 294 (48%) Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 9
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 71 (3%) 71 (2%) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 37 (1%) 37 (1%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 9
All students 59% 53% 71%
Corrective action 47 (2%) 47 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 40 32 51
Restructuring 34 (1%) 34 (*) 0 Migrant students 25 24 35
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 34 25 36
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 42 36 45
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 32 25 42
Hispanic students 46 41 53
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 65 59 78
Elementary indicator: Attendance 93% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: Attendance 93% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate 73.6% Met 100% 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
75% 71 2002
Title I school choice: 1,300 * 59 62 59 61 59 2001
Supplemental educational services: 3,508 1% 53
50%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
25%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.
0% n/a n/a
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 9

83
 Oklahoma http://sde.state.ok.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 554 543 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 5,456 28,120 teachers (CCD) Elementary 19,813 20,029
K-8 434,412 418,075 Middle 7,706 8,169
9-12 162,511 174,356 High 9,679 10,935
Total (K-12) 596,923 592,431 Combined n/a 43
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,833 1,463
Elementary 993 979
Total 39,031 40,638
Middle 341 341
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 458 466 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 14% 18%
Combined n/a 2 Instructional aides 6,172 6,323
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 23 18 Instructional coordinators 435 217
Black, non-Hispanic 10 11
Total 1,815 1,806 Administrators 2,596 2,721
Hispanic 3 7
White, non-Hispanic 72 63 Other 24,833 24,523
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 10 Total 34,036 33,784
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 13%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 4% 6% English 78% 57%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 74 70
Instructional $1,986,524 $2,239,893 Science 62 67
Noninstructional 285,794 252,939 Social studies 71 53
Support 1,132,291 1,382,715 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 3,404,610 3,875,547 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
64%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,637 $6,229 Algebra
I for high school credit – 25%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 57%
Low-poverty schools 90%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 320,600
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 32% 1993-94 2000-01
12%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 78 76
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 49 50
57%
0-34% 334 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 313 Proficient level or above n/a 26%
50-74% 697 Basic level or above n/a 60
Title I allocation 2001-02 $122,628,811 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 458 Proficient level or above n/a 20%
Basic level or above n/a 64
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
4 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
84 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Oklahoma
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Oklahoma’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 5, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 High school
All students 65% 71% 56%
See http://sde.state.ok.us/home/defaultie.html for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 64 68 48
system. Migrant students 59 74 28
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests Students with disabilities 19 22 10
State student achievement levels: Unsatisfactory, Limited Knowledge, Satisfactory, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 38 41 19
Black, non-Hispanic students 52 57 37
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 59 63 44
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 80 84 68
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 5 Reading API: 622 API: 622 100%
Mathematics 648 648 2003
Grade 8 Reading 622 622 75% 66 65 70 70 71 2002
63 64 62 2001
Mathematics 648 648 56
High school Reading 622 622 50%
Mathematics 648 648
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 5 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 828 (75%) 1,416 (79%) 164 (30%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 23 (2%) 28 (2%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 High school
All students 65% 65% 13%
Year 2 2 (*) 2 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 63 61 9
Corrective action 8 (1%) 8 (*) 0 Migrant students 69 61 6
Restructuring 10 (1%) 11 (1%) 0 Students with disabilities 23 18 <5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a 9 (1%) n/a Students with limited English proficiency 48 43 7
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 50 48 5
“made” above) Hispanic students 64 59 8
White, non-Hispanic students 78 78 17
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 91.2% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 91.2% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 68.8% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 64 65 2002
63 63 64 65 2001
Title I school choice: 714 *
50%
Supplemental educational services: 1,467 1%
25% 13
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0% n/a n/a
Grade 5 Grade 8 High School

85
 Oregon http://www.ode.state.or.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 271 198 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 837 420 teachers (CCD) Elementary 12,635 12,309
K-8 365,488 378,573 Middle 5,246 5,886
9-12 147,819 168,902 High 7,273 7,917
Total (K-12) 513,307 547,475 Combined 493 496
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 841 518
Elementary 758 747
Total 26,488 27,126
Middle 198 221
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 206 244 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% 2%
Combined 40 45 Instructional aides 5,236 8,313
Asian/Pacific Islander 3 4
Other 13 5 Instructional coordinators 338 434
Black, non-Hispanic 2 3
Total 1,215 1,262 Administrators 2,292 2,298
Hispanic 6 12
White, non-Hispanic 87 78 Other 16,038 16,871
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 21 Total 23,904 27,916
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 4% 9% English 61% 68%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 61 60
Instructional $2,187,431 $2,476,323 Science 93 74
Noninstructional 124,060 141,139 Social studies 79 57
Support 1,340,531 1,597,050 Migrant students
5% 7%
Total 3,652,023 4,214,512 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
82%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,069 $7,642 Algebra
I for high school credit 28% 25%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 72%
Low-poverty schools 86%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 211,674
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 36% 1993-94 2000-01
8%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 7% 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 73 68
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 57 51
56%
0-34% 461 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 291 Proficient level or above n/a 31%
50-74% 366 Basic level or above n/a 64
Title I allocation 2001-02 $94,338,878 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 93 Proficient level or above 26% 32%
Basic level or above 67 70
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
51 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
86 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Oregon
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Oregon State Assessments, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Oregon’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and Reading
high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 83% 60% 52%
See http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2004.pdf for more details on the statewide Economically disadvantaged students 77 41 30
accountability system. Migrant students 50 22 12
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Oregon State Assessments Students with disabilities 49 17 12
State student achievement levels: Very Low, Low, Nearly Meets, Meets Standards, Exceeds Students with limited English proficiency 53 22 10
Black, non-Hispanic students 77 40 26
Standards
Hispanic students 60 32 22
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 87 65 56
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 3 Reading 40% 40% 84 85 83
Mathematics 39 39 75% 2002
Grade 8 Reading 40 40 62 64 60 2001
52 53 52
Mathematics 39 39 50%
High school Reading 40 40
Mathematics 39 39 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 446 (82%) 83 9 (72%) 101 (51%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 78% 59% 45%
Year 1 2 (*) 2 (*) 1 (1%)
Economically disadvantaged students 70 39 23
Year 2 3 (*) 3 (1%) 1 (1%) Migrant students 48 24 12
Corrective action 2 (*) 2 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 51 17 9
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 51 28 15
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 64 63 20
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 55 31 17
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 83 63 48

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance 92% n/a
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance 92% n/a
High school indicator: Graduation rate 68.1% Met 75 77 78 2002
75%
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 55 58 59 2001
50% 42 45 45
Title I school choice: 873 1%
Supplemental educational services: 537 *
25%

0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

87
 Pennsylvania http://www.pde.state.pa.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 500 501 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 4,181 2,684 teachers (CCD) Elementary 42,756 49,104
K-8 1,211,095 1,235,493 Middle 19,093 24,366
9-12 496,382 571,910 High 29,484 35,102
Total (K-12) 1,707,477 1,807,403 Combined 637 1,483
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 9,332 8,202
Elementary 1,969 1,920
Total 101,301 118,256
Middle 515 569
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 589 612 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 20 53 Instructional aides 12,676 24,497
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 2%
Other 27 32 Instructional coordinators 1,576 1,464
Black, non-Hispanic 14 15
Total 3,120 3,186 Administrators 5,133 6,220
Hispanic 3 5
White, non-Hispanic 81 77 Other 70,198 80,814
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 91 Total 89,583 112,995
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited n/a 2% English 74% 67%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 98 81
Instructional $9,146,611 $9,686,763 Science 85 79
Noninstructional 546,525 591,774 Social studies 74 73
Support 4,665,989 5,272,437 Migrant students
* 2%
Total 14,359,126 15,550,974 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
95%
Per-pupil expenditures $8,248 $8,537 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 31%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 93%
Low-poverty schools 99%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 528,011
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 55% 1993-94 2000-01
7%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 4% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 81 79
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 57 61
38%
0-34% 2,047 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 485 Proficient level or above 30% 33%
50-74% 304 Basic level or above 61 65
Title I allocation 2001-02 $399,600,431 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 348 Proficient level or above n/a 30%
Basic level or above n/a 69
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
2 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
88 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Pennsylvania
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Pennsylvania’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 5, 8, Reading
and 11. Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 58% 64% 59%
See http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pas/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=95497&pasNav=|6150|&pasNav=| for Economically disadvantaged students 36 39 33
more details on the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 25 22 15
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Students with disabilities 19 17 14
(PSSA) Students with limited English proficiency 19 18 19
Black, non-Hispanic students 29 33 29
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced
Hispanic students 30 33 28
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 67 71 65
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 5 Reading 45% 45%
Mathematics 35 35 75% 2002
Grade 8 Reading 45 45 56 57 58 60 58 64 58 59 59 2001
Mathematics 35 35 50%
Grade 11 Reading 45 45
Mathematics 35 35 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 957 (63%) 1,714 (64%) 121 (24%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 56% 51% 49%
Year 1 140 (9%) 145 (5%) 2 (*)
Economically disadvantaged students 35 26 23
Year 2 1 (*) 1 (*) 1 (*) Migrant students 29 20 17
Corrective action 9 (1%) 9 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 22 11 10
Restructuring 129 (9%) 129 (5%) 4 (1%) Students with limited English proficiency 28 23 27
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 26 19 17
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 32 23 20
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 65 59 54

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Did not meet
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 95% Did not meet 75% 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 54 53 56 51 52 51 2001
50% 48 50 49
Title I school choice: 1,126 *
Supplemental educational services: n/a n/a
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

89
 Puerto Rico http://www.de.gobierno.pr
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 1 1 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 281 347 teachers (CCD) Elementary 19,125 19,101
K-8 455,072 415,715 Middle 6,693 6,144
9-12 162,371 160,894 High 5,717 6,464
Total (K-12) 617,443 576,609 Combined 6,634 9,799
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,647 861
Elementary 962 836
Total 39,816 42,369
Middle 216 196
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 160 163 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native n/a *
Combined 189 285 Instructional aides n/a 233
Asian/Pacific Islander n/a *
Other 43 44 Instructional coordinators 672 360
Black, non-Hispanic n/a *
Total 1,570 1,524 Administrators 1,595 3,108
Hispanic 100% 100%
White, non-Hispanic n/a * Other 25,922 28,483
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 122 Total 28,189 32,184
Students with disabilities (OSEP) n/a n/a
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 24% n/a English n/a n/a
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics n/a n/a
Instructional $1,245,389 $1,514,026 Science n/a n/a
Noninstructional 235,414 219,291 Social studies n/a n/a
Support 337,807 419,407 Migrant students
3% 3%
Total 1,818,610 2,152,724 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
25%
Per-pupil expenditures $2,880 $3,563 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 31%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 25%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 484,069
(CCD, 2001-02) State
(CCD)
Outcomes
71%
1993-94 2000-01
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 1%
Federal
30% participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 89% 66
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) n/a n/a

0-34% 14 NAEP state results (NCES)

Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 40 Proficient level or above n/a n/a
50-74% 244 Basic level or above n/a n/a
Title I allocation 2001-02 $333,995,520 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 1,226 Proficient level or above n/a n/a
Basic level or above n/a n/a
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
90 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Puerto Rico
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de Aprovechamiento Académico, used for
See Appendix B for Puerto Rico’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, NCLB accountability
and 11. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
See http://www.de.gobierno.pr for more details on the statewide accountability system.
All students 53% 37% 54%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de Aprovechamiento Economically disadvantaged students 52 34 51
Académico Migrant students 50 35 50
State student achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with disabilities 44 15 17
Students with limited Spanish proficiency 45 26 48
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students - - -
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 54 37 55
objective starting point (2002-03) White, non-Hispanic students 51 37 56
Grade 3 Reading 52% 52% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 39 39 100%
Grade 8 Reading 52 52
2003
Mathematics 39 39 75% n/a 2002
Grade 11 Reading 52 52 53 54 n/a 2001
Mathematics 39 39 50% 37
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 n/a n/a n/a Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 59% 35% 35%
Year 2 n/a n/a n/a
Economically disadvantaged students 57 34 34
Corrective action n/a n/a n/a Migrant students 58 35 35
Restructuring n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 51 22 19
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited Spanish proficiency 51 32 38
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students - - -
“made” above) Hispanic students 59 35 35
White, non-Hispanic students 56 38 39
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: English language proficiency n/a n/a
Middle indicator: English language proficiency n/a n/a
100% 2003
High school indicator: English language proficiency n/a n/a
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% n/a 2002
59 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 0 0
50%
Supplemental educational services: 4,698 1% 35 35
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11

91
 Rhode Island http://www.ridoe.net
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 36 36 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 465 1,209 teachers (CCD) Elementary 4,637 n/a
K-8 103,603 111,204 Middle 2,239 n/a
9-12 38,470 46,661 High 2,821 n/a
Total (K-12) 142,073 157,865 Combined 19 n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 107 n/a
Elementary 212 214

Total 9,823 n/a
Middle 51 57
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 41 47 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * 1%
Combined 2 4 Instructional aides 1,320 2,344
Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 3
Other 3 4 Instructional coordinators 78 67
Black, non-Hispanic 7 8
Total 309 326 Administrators 524 651
Hispanic 9 16
White, non-Hispanic 81 72 Other 3,697 4,516
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 7 Total 5,619 7,578
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 13% 17%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 5% 7% English 94% 74%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 81 82
Instructional $844,602 $989,404 Science 94 81
Noninstructional 32,448 40,573 Social studies 93 80
Support 390,456 503,479 Migrant students
* *
Total 1,267,505 1,533,456 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
63%
Per-pupil expenditures $8,701 $9,703 Algebra
I for high school credit 32% n/a
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 58%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 53,084
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 52% 1993-94 2000-01
6%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 74 74
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 65 66
42%
0-34% 198 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 31 Proficient level or above 32% 30%
50-74% 33 Basic level or above 65 63
Title I allocation 2001-02 $34,250,118 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 56 Proficient level or above 20% 24%
Basic level or above 60 63
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
8 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
92 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Rhode Island
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
New Standards Reference Exam, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Rhode Island’s definitions of proficient for English or language arts and mathematics English or language arts
for grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 62% 41% 43%
See http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/2005/state/infoworks_statereport.pdf for more details on the Economically disadvantaged students 44 23 23
statewide accountability system. Migrant students n/a n/a n/a
State assessment for NCLB accountability: New Standards Reference Exam Students with disabilities 30 14 17
State student achievement levels: Little evidence of achivement, Below the standard, Nearly Students with limited English proficiency 22 10 7
Black, non-Hispanic students 42 26 26
achieved the standard, Achieved the Standard, Achieved the Standard with Honors
Hispanic students 40 22 23
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 71 49 50
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03) 100%
Grade 4 English language arts 76.1% 76.1% 2003
Mathematics 61.7 61.7 75% n/a 2002
Grade 8 English language arts 68 68
62 n/a 2001
Mathematics 46.1 46.1 50% 41 43
High school English language arts 62.6 62.6
Mathematics 44.8 44.8 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 82 (56%) 208 (66%) 25 (69%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 42% 34% 34%
Year 1 12 (8%) 21 (7%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 26 15 13
Year 2 11 (8%) 11 (4%) 4 (11%) Migrant students n/a n/a n/a
Corrective action 1 (1%) 1 (*) 2 (6%) Students with disabilities 24 11 10
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 14 8 5
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 20 15 13
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 22 13 13
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 50 42 42

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance rate 90% Met
100% 2003
Middle indicator: Attendance rate 90% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate 71.4% Met
75% n/a 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students n/a 2001
50% 42
Title I school choice: 39 * 34 34
Supplemental educational services: 2,191 23%
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

93
 South Carolina http://www.sde.state.sc.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 95 89 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 7,407 19,949 teachers (CCD) Elementary 17,975 22,221
K-8 459,707 478,984 Middle 9,412 10,399
9-12 176,745 191,743 High 10,036 11,796
Total (K-12) 636,452 670,727 Combined 80 342
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,117 1,880
Elementary 589 609

Total 38,620 46,578
Middle 239 247
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 195 203 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 11 12 Instructional aides 6,891 1,947
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
Other 13 10 Instructional coordinators 503 741
Black, non-Hispanic 41 41
Total 1,047 1,081 Administrators 2,429 3,440
Hispanic 1 3
White, non-Hispanic 57 54 Other 24,375 10,459
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 10 Total 34,198 16,587
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 14%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited * 1% English 78% 68%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 72 79
Instructional $2,114,689 $2,857,016 Science 74 75
Noninstructional 224,942 257,624 Social studies 72 83
Support 1,233,218 1,630,168 Migrant students
* *
Total 3,572,849 4,744,808 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 Not Available
Per-pupil expenditures $5,550 $7,017 Algebra
I for high school credit 27% 24%
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 343,810
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 40% 1993-94 2000-01

9%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 3%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 67% 57
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 58 66
51%
0-34% 221 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 221 Proficient level or above 20% 25%
50-74% 365 Basic level or above 48 59
Title I allocation 2001-02 $142,363,522 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 254 Proficient level or above 14% 26%
Basic level or above 48 67
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
20 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
94 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent

South Carolina
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT), used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for South Carolina’s definitions of proficient for English/language arts and mathematics English or language arts
for grades 4, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 32% 20% 29%
See http://www.myscschools.com/reportcard/2003/ for more details on the statewide accountability Economically disadvantaged students 18 9 16
system. Migrant students 14 <5 11
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) Students with disabilities 35 <5 6
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 7 <5 7
Black, non-Hispanic students 17 8 16
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 22 13 19
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 43 29 40
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 English/language arts 17.6% 17.6% 100%
Mathematics 15.5 15.5 2003
Grade 8 English/language arts 17.6 17.6 75% 2002
Mathematics 15.5 15.5 2001
High school English/language arts 17.6 17.6 50% 37
34 32 29
Mathematics 15.5 15.5
25% 24 27 20
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0% n/a n/a
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 4 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP 110 (20%) 584 (55%) 79 (89%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 64 (12%) 64 (6%) 6 (7%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 High school
All students 33% 19% 31%
Year 2 11 (2%) 11 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 20 8 17
Corrective action 15 (3%) 15 (1%) 1 (1%) Migrant students 12 12 15
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 37 3 8
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 14 8 12
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 17 6 41
“made” above) Hispanic students 26 14 22
White, non-Hispanic students 47 28 43
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 95.3% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 95.3% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 77.3% Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
2001
Title I school choice: 1,770 4%
50% 36 33
Supplemental educational services: 1,477 14% 31
26
25% 18 19 19
0% n/a n/a
Grade 4 Grade 8 High School

95
 South Dakota http://www.state.sd.us/deca
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 173 178 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 612 2,246 teachers (CCD) Elementary 4,627 4,406
K-8 100,054 85,195 Middle 2,067 1,903
9-12 39,971 40,598 High 2,756 2,780
Total (K-12) 140,025 125,793 Combined n/a 100
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 107 69
Elementary 373 368

Total 9,557 9,257
Middle 191 171
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 187 177 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 13% 11%
Combined n/a 20 Instructional aides 1,801 3,312
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Other 23 2 Instructional coordinators 14 376
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 774 738 Administrators 947 858
Hispanic 1 2
White, non-Hispanic 85 85 Other 4,882 5,228
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 7,644 9,774
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 3% 3% English 73% 74%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 67 76
Instructional $461,663 $484,985 Science 72 72
Noninstructional 41,349 44,415 Social studies 61 68
Support 245,763 289,896 Migrant students
1% 2%
Total 748,774 819,296 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
86%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,242 $6,424 Algebra
I for high school credit n/a 24%
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 16%
Low-poverty schools 91%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 38,800
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 50%
1993-94 2000-01
14% High
school dropout rate 5% 4%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES)

participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 92 77
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 50 64
State
36%
0-34% 330 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 136 Proficient level or above n/a 33%
50-74% 111 Basic level or above n/a 68
Title I allocation 2001-02 $27,405,068 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 69 Proficient level or above n/a 35%
Basic level or above n/a 78
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
92 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
96 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 South Dakota
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Dakota State Test of Educational Progress, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for South Dakota’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, Reading
and 11. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 85% 77% 57%
See https://sis.ddncampus.net:8081/nclb/portal/portal.xsl for more details on the statewide account- Economically disadvantaged students 75 62 43
ability system. Migrant students 55 42 31
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Dakota State Test of Educational Progress Students with disabilities 51 28 9
State student achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 52 13 7
Black, non-Hispanic students 74 62 37
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 68 58 41
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 89 81 59
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 Reading 65% 65%
100% 2003
Mathematics 45 45 85
77 n/a 2002
Grade 8 Reading 65 65 75%
Mathematics 45 45 57 n/a 2001
Grade 11 Reading 50 50 50%
Mathematics 60 60
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Made AYP 501 (69%) 536 (75%) 62 (36%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 27 (8%) 27 (4%) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 72% 55% 69%
Year 2 2 (1%) 2 (*) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 58 38 54
Corrective action 3 (1%) 3 (*) 0 Migrant students 39 26 38
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 39 10 13
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 4 (1%) 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 26 34 18
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 49 29 43
“made” above) Hispanic students 46 28 43
White, non-Hispanic students 78 61 72
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance 94% n/a
Middle indicator: Attendance 94% n/a
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate 90% n/a
75% 72 69 n/a 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
55 n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 1 *
50%
Supplemental educational services: 7 *
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11

97
 Tennessee http://www.state.tn.us/education
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 138 138 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 9,976 n/a teachers (CCD) Elementary 25,498 n/a
K-8 603,041 641,585 Middle 7,822 n/a
9-12 236,542 246,802 High 12,746 n/a
Total (K-12) 839,583 888,387 Combined n/a n/a
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other n/a n/a
Elementary 942 973

Total 46,066 n/a
Middle 237 295
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 255 290 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * n/a
Combined 49 67 Instructional aides 8,981 14,199
Asian/Pacific Islander 1% n/a
Other 13 3 Instructional coordinators n/a 1,179
Black, non-Hispanic 23 n/a
Total 1,496 1,628 Administrators 5,137 6,092
Hispanic 1 n/a
White, non-Hispanic 76 n/a Other 31,647 34,235
Number
of charter schools (CCD) n/a Total 45,765 55,705
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited * 2% English 73% 73%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 59 51
Instructional $2,720,751 $3,586,780 Science 52 53
Noninstructional 232,647 269,598 Social studies 81 69
Support 1,278,365 1,655,074 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 4,231,763 5,511,452 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
14%
Per-pupil expenditures $4,881 $5,959 Algebra
I for high school credit 18% 20%
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 15%
Low-poverty schools 33%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 n/a
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 47%
1993-94 2000-01
10% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 66 59
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 54 62
State
44% NAEP state results (NCES)
Data not available. Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
Proficient level or above 27% 26%
Basic level or above 58 57
Title I allocation 2001-02 $152,480,135 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) Proficient level or above 15% 21%
Basic level or above 53 59
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
98 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Tennessee
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Tennessee Achievement Test, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Tennessee’s definitions of proficient for reading/language arts and mathematics for Reading or language arts
grades 3, 8, and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 81% 80% 89%
See http://evaas.sasinschool.com/tn_reportcard/welcome.jsp for more details on the statewide ac- Economically disadvantaged students 71 67 80
countability system. Migrant students 48 39 61
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Tennessee Achievement Test Students with disabilities 34 29 48
State student achievement levels: Below Proficient, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 48 21 59
Black, non-Hispanic students 69 65 79
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 67 63 89
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 86 85 91
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: Reading or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 3 Reading/language arts 77.1% 77.1%
100% 89 2003
Mathematics 72.4 72.4 81 80
Grade 8 Reading/language arts 77.1 77.1 75% n/a 2002
Mathematics 72.4 72.4 n/a 2001
High school Reading/language arts 86 86 50%
Mathematics 65.4 65.4
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
0%
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts Grade 3 Grade 8 High School
Made AYP n/a 832 (50%) 11 (8%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 n/a 0 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 High school
All students 80% 79% 77%
Year 2 n/a 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 70 66 65
Corrective action n/a 33 (2%) 0 Migrant students 57 51 94
Restructuring n/a 28 (2%) 0 Students with disabilities 41 30 41
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 57 44 63
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 64 61 56
“made” above) Hispanic students 70 70 72
White, non-Hispanic students 86 86 84
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance 92.5% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance 92.5% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate 76% Met 80 79 77
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% n/a 2002
n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 839 *
50%
Supplemental educational services: 4,870 2%
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 3 Grade 8 High School

99
 Texas http://www.tea.state.tx.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 1,046 1,040 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 120,446 182,176 teachers (CCD) Elementary 107,516 134,768
K-8 2,560,607 2,895,725 Middle 50,750 6,579
9-12 927,209 1,180,108 High 55,381 74,823
Total (K-12) 3,487,816 4,075,833 Combined 5,958 8,238
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 5,224 64,247
Elementary 3,385 3,934

Total 224,830 288,655
Middle 1,308 1,570
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 1,148 1,403 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 392 800 Instructional aides 38,816 58,933
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 3%
Other 19 50 Instructional coordinators 1,257 1,335
Black, non-Hispanic 14 14
Total 6,252 7,757 Administrators 13,286 37,341
Hispanic 36 43
White, non-Hispanic 48 40 Other 154,913 207,738
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 260 Total 208,272 305,347
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 12% 15% English 71% 64%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02, in thousands)
English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 65 57
Instructional $12,292,564 $17,026,101 Science 70 57
Noninstructional 1,242,635 1,409,676 Social studies 67 60
Support 7,195,813 9,755,351 Migrant students
3% 5%
Total 20,731,012 28,191,128 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
76%
Per-pupil expenditures $5,745 $6,771 Algebra
I for high school credit 25% 25%
(CCD , adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 69%
Low-poverty schools 81%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 1,968,976
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 50% 1993-94 2000-01

9%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 66% 71
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 50 53
41%
0-34% 2,478 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 1,399 Proficient level or above 26% 27%
50-74% 2,149 Basic level or above 58 60
Title I allocation 2001-02 $862,758,289 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 1,573 Proficient level or above 21% 25%
Basic level or above 59 69
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
158 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
100 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Texas
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Texas’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 10. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
See http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport for more details on the statewide accountability system. All students 86% 88% 81%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Economically disadvantaged students 78 82 73
State student achievement levels: Did Not Meet the Standard, Met the Standard, Commended Migrant students 72 75 63
Performance Students with disabilities 79 71 52
Students with limited English proficiency 70 45 31
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 76 82 76
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 80 83 73
White, non-Hispanic students 93 94 91
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade 4 Reading 46.8% 46.8% Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 33.4 33.4 100% 88
86 81 2003
Grade 8 Reading 46.8 46.8
Mathematics 33.4 33.4 75% n/a 2002
Grade 10 Reading 46.8 46.8 n/a 2001
Mathematics 33.4 33.4 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
0%
Made AYP 4,241 (88%) 6,262 (81%) 1,001 (82%) Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Identified for improvement:
Year 1 6 (*) 6 (*) 0 Mathematics
Year 2 3 (*) 3 (*) 0 Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 87% 73% 73%
Corrective action 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 81 60 61
Restructuring 0 0 0 Migrant students 77 54 56
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with disabilities 80 46 39
after missing twice or more, includes total Students with limited English proficiency 74 32 43
“made” above) Black, non-Hispanic students 78 57 59
Hispanic students 83 63 64
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome White, non-Hispanic students 94 84 83
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 90% Met Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or exceed 90% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or exceed 70% Met
100% 87 2003
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
73 73 n/a 2002
Title I school choice: 0 0 75%
n/a 2001
Supplemental educational services: 45 *
50%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
25%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.
0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

101
 Utah http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 40 40 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 2,690 3,542 teachers (CCD) Elementary 9,826 11,373
K-8 321,280 328,029 Middle 4,279 4,456
9-12 137,235 141,849 High 4,613 5,325
Total (K-12) 458,515 469,878 Combined 17 137
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 318 1,124
Elementary 433 482

Total 19,053 22,415
Middle 114 125
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 132 165 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 2%
Combined 13 10 Instructional aides 4,309 5,602
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3
Other 26 21 Instructional coordinators 411 653
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 718 803 Administrators 980 1,175
Hispanic 5 10
White, non-Hispanic 92 84 Other 10,548 11,710
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 12 Total 16,248 19,140
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 5% 10% English 73% 63%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 55 63
Instructional $1,297,637 $1,549,329 Science 66 83
Noninstructional 118,077 129,975 Social studies 61 72
Support 518,912 695,398 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 1,934,626 2,374,702 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
96%
Per-pupil expenditures $4,104 $4,900 Algebra
I for high school credit 42% 40%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 96%
Low-poverty schools 95%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 149,728
(CCD, 2001-02) Local (CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 33% 1993-94 2000-01

8%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 3% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 83 82
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 56 38
59%
0-34% 371 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 183 Proficient level or above 30% 32%
50-74% 138 Basic level or above 64 66
Title I allocation 2001-02 $43,651,387 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 62 Proficient level or above 24% 31%
Basic level or above 70 72
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
49 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
102 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Utah
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Utah Performance Assessment System for Students, used for NCLB
See Appendix B for Utah’s definitions of proficient for language arts and mathematics for grades 4, 8, 10. accountability
See http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/default/annual_report_03_04.pdf for more details on the statewide Language arts
accountability system. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 79% 72% 80%
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Utah Performance Assessment System for Economically disadvantaged students 65 54 65
Students Migrant students 48 31 40
State student achievement levels: Minimal, Partial, Sufficient, Substantial Students with disabilities 38 28 37
Students with limited English proficiency 12 33 43
NCLB Accountability Goals Black, non-Hispanic students 61 53 57
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Hispanic students 52 43 51
objective starting point (2002-03) White, non-Hispanic students 82 76 83
Grade 4 Language arts 65% 65% Student achievement trend: Language arts percent proficient level or above
Mathematics 57 57 100% 2003
Grade 8 Language arts 64 65 82 80 79 80
75% 72 2002
Mathematics 35 57
Grade 10 Language arts 64 64
2001
Mathematics 35 35 50%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 25%

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts n/a n/a n/a n/a
0%
Made AYP 143 (67%) 600 (73%) 42 (81%) Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 72 (33%) 227 (27%) 10 (19%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 73% 73% 49%
Year 2 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 62 56 40
Corrective action 0 0 0 Migrant students 47 40 30
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 38 32 27
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 52 40 26
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 56 47 22
“made” above) Hispanic students 50 46 31
White, non-Hispanic students 77 77 55
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 93% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 93% Met
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation or Meet or progress toward 85.7% (graduation)
attendance or 93% (attendance) Met 75% 73 73 n/a 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students n/a 2001
49
50%
Title I school choice: n/a n/a
Supplemental educational services: n/a n/a
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0%
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

103
 Vermont http://www.state.vt.us/educ
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 285 298 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 2,024 2,800 teachers (CCD) Elementary 4,204 4,469
K-8 72,804 65,234 Middle 846 759
9-12 27,377 31,807 High 2,379 2,846
Total (K-12) 100,181 97,041 Combined 603 468
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 70 n/a
Elementary 279 257
Total 8,102 8,542
Middle 29 24
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 49 47 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%
Combined 18 31 Instructional aides 2,139 4,210
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2
Other 3 – Instructional coordinators 230 325
Black, non-Hispanic 1 1
Total 378 359 Administrators 989 575
Hispanic * 1
White, non-Hispanic 98 96 Other 4,058 4,732
Number
of charter schools (CCD) – Total 7,416 9,842
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 1% 1% English 87% n/a
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 75 55%
Instructional $537,563 $638,802 Science 81 77
Noninstructional 27,283 27,841 Social studies 81 78
Support 259,375 325,507 Migrant students
1% 1%
Total 824,221 992,150 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
80%
Per-pupil expenditures $8,022 $9,806 Algebra
I for high school credit 22% 20%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 73%

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced- Low-poverty schools 87%

Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 25,501
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
24%
1993-94 2000-01
Federal
6% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 5% 5%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 86 80
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 51 45
State
70% 0-34% 240 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 76 Proficient level or above n/a 37%
50-74% 38 Basic level or above n/a 74
Title I allocation 2001-02 $22,381,585 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 5 Proficient level or above 27% 35%
Basic level or above 72 77
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable
K n/a = Not available
104 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Vermont
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
New Standards Reference Examinations, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Vermont’s definitions of proficient for English and language arts: Reading basic English and language arts: Reading basic understanding
understanding and Mathematics: Math skills for grades 4, 8, and 10. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 81% 62% 55%
See http://crs.uvm.edu/schlrpt/cfusion/schlrpt04/vermont.cfm for more details on the Vermont’s Economically disadvantaged students 70 46 36
system. Migrant students # # #
State assessment for NCLB accountability: New Standards Reference Examinations Students with disabilities 48 24 14
State student achievement levels: Little Evidence of Achievement, Below the Standard, Nearly Students with limited English proficiency 62 15 11
Black, non-Hispanic students 78 53 37
Achieves the Standard, Achieves the Standard, Achieves the Standard with Honors
Hispanic students 75 60 39
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 81 62 55
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: English and language arts: Reading basic understanding
objective starting point (2002-03) percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 English & language arts 300 300 100%
81 2003
Mathematics 175 175
75% n/a 2002
Grade 8 English & language arts 300 300 62
55 n/a 2001
Mathematics 175 175
50%
Grade 10 English & language arts 300 300
Mathematics 175 175 25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 183 (86%) 267 (87%) 19 (32%) Mathematics: Math skills
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students 73% 67% 62%
Year 1 2 (1%) 3 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 60 51 43
Year 2 1 (*) 4 (1%) 0 Migrant students # # #
Corrective action 1 (*) 2 (1%) 0 Students with disabilities 43 29 21
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 56 42 26
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 60 50 37
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 62 60 45
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 74 68 63

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics: Math skills percent proficient level or
above
Elementary indicator: VT-Dev. Read. Assessment Less than 15% of students Met
Middle indicator: New Standards Reference Exam in lowest two proficiency levels Met 100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate or 75% or less than 15% of students Met 73 n/a 2002
75% 67 62
NSRE Reading: Basic Understanding performance in lowest two proficiency levels n/a 2001
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 50%
Title I school choice: 0 0 25%
Supplemental educational services: 0 0
0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

105
 Virginia http://www.pen.k12.va.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 141 135 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 3,186 14,507 teachers (CCD) Elementary 28,540 44,038
K-8 734,673 815,946 Middle 12,131 20,273
9-12 278,009 345,720 High 27,535 26,895
Total (K-12) 1,012,682 1,161,666 Combined 575 561
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,440 8,153
Elementary 1,093 1,160

Total 70,221 99,920
Middle 308 341
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 286 315 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 13 22 Instructional aides 11,209 2,632
Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 5%
Other 44 8 Instructional coordinators 1,077 1,465
Black, non-Hispanic 26 27
Total 1,744 1,846 Administrators 5,183 5,963
Hispanic 3 6
White, non-Hispanic 68 62 Other 41,705 53,015
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 7 Total 59,174 63,075
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 11% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited n/a 4% English 93% 63%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 69 59
Instructional $4,192,655 $5,373,764 Science 67 74
Noninstructional 361,991 340,875 Social studies 84 77
Support 2,411,355 3,003,915 Migrant students
* *
Total 6,966,001 8,718,554 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
92%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,663 $7,496 Algebra
I for high school credit 29% 28%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 93%
Low-poverty schools 92%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 355,212
(CCD, 2001-02)
Local (CCD)
Outcomes
53%
Federal
1993-94 2000-01
6% High school dropout rate
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to (NCES) 5% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 76 78
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 53 53
State
41% 0-34% NAEP state results (NCES)
899
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 347 Proficient level or above 26% 35%
50-74% 384 Basic level or above 57 69
Title I allocation 2001-02 $174,346,805 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 134 Proficient level or above 21% 31%
Basic level or above 58 72
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
82 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
106 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Virginia
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Standards of Learning Assessments, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Virginia’s definitions of proficient for English and mathematics for grades 3, 8, English
and 11. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 72% 70% 92%
See http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/src/vasrc-reportcard-intropage.shtml for more details on the Economically disadvantaged students 57 50 86
statewide accountability system. Migrant students 47 46 76
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Standards of Learning Assessments Students with disabilities 54 37 73
State student achievement levels: Fails/Does not meet the standard, Pass/Proficient, Students with limited English proficiency 56 35 79
Black, non-Hispanic students 58 52 86
Pass/Advanced
Hispanic students 62 53 88
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 79 78 95
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: English percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 92 2003
Grade 3 English 60.7% 61%
Mathematics 58.4 59 75% 64 71 72 73 70 70 2002
Grade 8 English 60.7 61 2001
Mathematics 58.4 59 50%
Grade 11 English 60.7 61
Mathematics 58.4 59 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0% n/a n/a
Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 457 (58%) 1,064 (59%) 109 (83%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 83% 75% 80%
Year 1 22 (3%) 22 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 72 59 69
Year 2 22 (3%) 22 (1%) 0 Migrant students 63 59 73
Corrective action 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 64 39 54
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 75 65 74
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Black, non-Hispanic students 72 59 65
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 78 68 73
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 88 81 84

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance rate 94% Met
100% 2003
77 80 83
Middle indicator: Attendance rate 94% Met 80
75 2002
High school indicator: Graduation rate 51.7% Met 75% 68 70
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 2001
50%
Title I school choice: 432 *
Supplemental educational services: 1,301 1%
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement, 0% n/a n/a
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 11

107
 Washington http://www.k12.wa.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 296 296 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 5,087 9,802 teachers (CCD) Elementary 22,655 25,666
K-8 655,337 687,389 Middle 8,655 10,760
9-12 255,528 317,607 High 10,728 13,460
Total (K-12) 910,865 1,004,996 Combined 979 1,087
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 2,507 1,980
Elementary 1,087 1,180

Total 45,524 52,953
Middle 298 358
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 371 476 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3% 3%
Combined 90 154 Instructional aides 7,940 10,116
Asian/Pacific Islander 6 8
Other 14 39 Instructional coordinators 656 2,394
Black, non-Hispanic 4 6
Total 1,860 2,207 Administrators 3,455 3,754
Hispanic 7 12
White, non-Hispanic 80 73 Other 30,391 43,523
Number
of charter schools (CCD) – Total 42,442 59,787
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 9% 10%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 3% 7% English 64% 65%
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
(CCD, in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 49 55
Instructional $3,739,586 $4,227,572 Science 83 79
Noninstructional 289,051 345,126 Social studies 75 77
Support 2,234,928 2,531,023 Migrant students
3% 5%
Total 6,263,564 7,103,721 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
82%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,839 $7,039 Algebra
I for high school credit 26% 20%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 85%
Low-poverty schools 79%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 347,562
(CCD, 2001-02)
(CCD)
Outcomes
Local 1993-94 2000-01
Federal 29%
9% Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) n/a n/a
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 80% 69%
^
2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 57 45
State
62% NAEP state results (NCES)
0-34% 878
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 392 Proficient level or above 27% 33%
50-74% 405 Basic level or above 59 67
Title I allocation 2001-02 $142,698,964 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 186 Proficient level or above 26% 32%
Basic level or above 67 72
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
346 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
108 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Washington
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Washington Assessment of Student Learning, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Washington’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 7, Reading
and high school. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 High school
All students 67% 48% 60%
See http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Reports/WASLTrend.aspx?&schoolId=1&reportLevel=State for Economically disadvantaged students 52 30 43
more details on the statewide accountability system. Migrant students 30 13 29
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Washington Assessment of Student Learning Students with disabilities 31 10 12
(WASL) Students with limited English proficiency 24 7 12
Black, non-Hispanic students 52 28 37
State student achievement levels: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4
Hispanic students 41 24 35
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 73 53 65
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
100% 2003
Grade 4 Reading 52.2% 52.2%
Mathematics 29.7 29.7 75% 67 66 67 2002
Grade 7 Reading 30.1 30.1 63 59 60 2001
Mathematics 17.3 17.3 50% 40 44 48
High school Reading 48.6 48.6
Mathematics 24.8 24.8 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 4 Grade 7 High School
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP 725 (79%) 1,563 (72%) 173 (66%) Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 7 High school
All students 55% 37% 40%
Year 1 11 (1%) 17 (1%) 0
Economically disadvantaged students 40 20 24
Year 2 30 (3%) 30 (1%) 0 Migrant students 24 8 16
Corrective action 4 (*) 4 (*) 0 Students with disabilities 25 5 4
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 20 6 8
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 13 (1%) 13 (1%) 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 36 14 14
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 31 15 16
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 62 42 44

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward unexcused Met
100% 2003
absence rate of 1% or less
High school indicator: Graduation rate 73% or higher Met 75% 2002
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 52 55 2001
50% 43 37 39 38 40
Title I school choice: 377 *
Supplemental educational services: 250 * 27 30
25%

0%
Grade 4 Grade 7 High School

109
 West Virginia http://wvde.state.wv.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 55 55 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 3,981 7,734 teachers (CCD) Elementary 9,628 9,522
K-8 209,090 192,050 Middle 4,110 4,066
9-12 96,264 82,281 High 5,277 5,377
Total (K-12) 305,354 274,331 Combined 684 214
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,331 878
Elementary 557 484

Total 21,029 20,119
Middle 137 131
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 133 131 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * *
Combined 23 14 Instructional aides 2,858 3,087
Asian/Pacific Islander * 1%
Other 20 8 Instructional coordinators 334 336
Black, non-Hispanic 4% 5
Total 870 768 Administrators 1,388 1,478
Hispanic * *
White, non-Hispanic 95 94 Other 12,877 13,112
Number
of charter schools (CCD) – Total 17,457 18,013
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 16%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited n/a 1% English 74% 72%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 80 79
Instructional $1,324,939 $1,368,692 Science 76 69
Noninstructional 120,686 129,203 Social studies 83 80
Support 684,440 721,118 Migrant students
* *
Total 2,130,064 2,219,013 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 94%
Per-pupil expenditures $6,775 $7,844 Algebra
I for high school credit 26% 25%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 96%
Low-poverty schools 98%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 136,469
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 29% 1993-94 2000-01
11%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 4% 4%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 78 76
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 50 52
61%
0-34% 116 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 190 Proficient level or above 26% 29%
50-74% 369 Basic level or above 58 65
Title I allocation 2001-02 $81,033,051 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 87 Proficient level or above 14% 20%
Basic level or above 54 63
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
6 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
110 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 West Virginia
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
WESTEST, used for NCLB accountability as a proxy for AYP
See Appendix B for West Virginia’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 3-8 Reading
and grade 10. Proficient level or above for: Grade 3-11 Grade Grade
All students 61% – –
See http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/public04/nclbmenu.cfm for more details on the statewide account- Economically disadvantaged students 51 – –
ability system. Migrant students – –
State assessment for NCLB accountability: WESTEST Students with disabilities 39 – –
State student achievement levels: Novice, Partial Mastery, Mastery, Above Mastery, Students with limited English proficiency 58 – –
Black, non-Hispanic students 28 – –
Distinguished
Hispanic students 52 – –
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 62 – –
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03)
Grade
Data not available.
Grade

Grade

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year

AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts
Made AYP n/a n/a n/a Mathematics
Identified for improvement: Proficient level or above for: Grade 3-11 Grade Grade
All students 69% – –
Year 1 7 (2%) 58 (8%) n/a
Economically disadvantaged students 61 – –
Year 2 4 (1%) 4 (*) n/a Migrant students – –
Corrective action 1 (*) 4 (*) 2 (4%) Students with disabilities 44 – –
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with limited English proficiency 72 – –
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 55 – –
after missing twice or more, includes total Hispanic students 59 – –
“made” above) White, non-Hispanic students 70 – –

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
Middle indicator: Attendance Meet or progress toward 95% Met
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 80% Met Data not available.
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
Title I school choice: 90 *
Supplemental educational services: 33 *

*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above.

111
 Wisconsin http://www.dpi.state.wi.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 427 437 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K 17,270 26,092 teachers (CCD) Elementary 24,508 28,447
K-8 578,447 565,592 Middle 10,278 12,052
9-12 248,284 289,333 High 15,742 18,092
Total (K-12) 826,731 854,925 Combined 523 1,334
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 1,771 461
Elementary 1,235 1,251

Total 52,822 60,385
Middle 347 390
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 424 511 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3% 1%
Combined 23 67 Instructional aides 7,565 12,851
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 3
Other 3 13 Instructional coordinators 314 1,663
Black, non-Hispanic 1 10
Total 2,032 2,232 Administrators 3,973 3,461
Hispanic 6 5
White, non-Hispanic 89 79 Other 23,966 34,902
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 128 Total 35,818 52,877
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 10% 11%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited 2% 4% English 75% 81%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 76 75
Instructional $4,205,737 $4,705,538 Science 68 82
Noninstructional 198,240 243,733 Social studies 85 85
Support 2,215,036 2,642,906 Migrant students
* *
Total 6,619,013 7,592,177 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003
All schools 99%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,842 $8,634 Algebra
I for high school credit 25% 22%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 97%
Low-poverty schools Not Available
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 242,158
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 41% 1993-94 2000-01
6%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 3% 2%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 85 83
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 60 57
54%
0-34% 1,441 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 338
Proficient level or above 35% 33%
50-74% 210 Basic level or above 71 68
Title I allocation 2001-02 $149,746,614 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 146 Proficient level or above 32% 35%
Basic level or above 75 75
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
97 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
112 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Wisconsin
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations, WAA-SwD and WAA-LEP,
See Appendix B for Wisconsin’s definitions of proficient for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, used for NCLB accountability
and 10. Reading
Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
See http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/oea/accounty.html for more details on the statewide accountability All students 81% 83% 71%
system. Economically disadvantaged students 68 65 50
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examina- Migrant students # # #
tions plus the Wisconsin Alternate Assessments for students with disabilities (WAA-SwD) and for Students with disabilities 50 46 29
English language learners (WAA-LEP) Students with limited English proficiency 52 39 20
Black, non-Hispanic students 62 54 36
State student achievement levels: Minimum, Basic, Proficient, Advanced Hispanic students 63 60 45
NCLB Accountability Goals White, non-Hispanic students 87 89 78
2001-02 Annual measurable Target Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above
objective starting point (2002-03) 100%
Grade 4 Reading 61% 61% 78 79 81 83 2003
Mathematics 37 37 75% 73 74 69 71 2002
Grade 8 Reading 61 61 61 2001
Mathematics 37 37 50%
Grade 10 Reading 61 61
Mathematics 37 37 25%

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year 0%

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts Mathematics
Made AYP 950 (94%) 1,915 (95%) 404 (95%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10
Identified for improvement: All students 71% 73% 69%
Economically disadvantaged students 53 50 43
Year 1 16 (2%) 25 (1%) 0 Migrant students # # #
Year 2 30 (3%) 36 (2%) 0 Students with disabilities 46 34 24
Corrective action 6 (1%) 7 (*) 0 Students with limited English proficiency 51 40 25
Restructuring 0 0 0 Black, non-Hispanic students 42 31 23
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice 21 (2%) 23 (1%) 0 Hispanic students 54 47 40
after missing twice or more, includes total White, non-Hispanic students 76 81 76
“made” above) Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
100% 2003
Elementary/middle indicator: Attendance Meet or improve toward 90% of the Met
of the statewide average 75% 65 69 71 73 69 2002
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or improve toward 90% of the Met 2001
statewide average graduation rate 50% 46 43
39 44
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
25%
Title I school choice: 111 *
Supplemental educational services: 750 3%
0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

113
 Wyoming http://www.k12.wy.us
Districts and schools Students Staff

Number of districts 1993-94 2002-03 Public school 1993-94 2002-03 Number of FTE 1993-94 2002-03

(CCD) 49 48 enrollment (CCD) Pre-K n/a n/a teachers (CCD) Elementary 3,105 303
K-8 71,402 58,258 Middle 1,408 1,540
9-12 29,497 28,190 High 1,805 1,859
Total (K-12) 100,899 86,448 Combined n/a 157
Number of public schools (CCD)
Other 219 2,937
Elementary 239 217

Total 6,537 6,795
Middle 86 78
Race/ethnicity (CCD)

High 75 77 Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native * 3%
Combined n/a 16 Instructional aides 1,301 1,804
Asian/Pacific Islander * 1
Other 1 1 Instructional coordinators 81 155
Black, non-Hispanic 4% 1
Total 401 389 Administrators 435 620
Hispanic * 8
White, non-Hispanic 95 87 Other 4,630 4,463
Number
of charter schools (CCD) 1 Total 6,447 7,042
Students with disabilities (OSEP) 12% 12%
Finances Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject
taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02 Students with limited n/a 4% English 75% 79%
(CCD,
adjusted for inflation to 2001-02,
in thousands) English proficiency (NCELA) Mathematics 78 79
Instructional $441,819 $463,839 Science 80 78
Noninstructional 25,162 25,150 Social studies 81 70
Support 247,815 272,841 Migrant students
* 1%
Total 714,796 761,830 (OME) Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified
teachers, 2002-03 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)
Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003 All schools
95%
Per-pupil expenditures $7,085 $8,645 Algebra
I for high school credit 23% 25%
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2001-02) (NAEP) High-poverty schools 99%
Low-poverty schools 97%
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-
Sources of funding
Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 25,953
(CCD, 2001-02) Local
(CCD)
Outcomes
Federal 43% 1993-94 2000-01
8%
Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to High
school dropout rate (NCES) 7% 6%
participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, Avg.
freshman graduation rate (NCES) 85 73
^
State 2002-03 (CCD)
College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) 53 52
49%
0-34% 209 NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003
35-49% 96 Proficient level or above 32% 33%
50-74% 55 Basic level or above 68 68
Title I allocation 2001-02 $23,956,094 Math, Grade 8 1996 2003
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A) 75-100% 20 Proficient level or above 22% 32%
Basic level or above 68 76
KEY: * = Less than 0.5 percent
— = Not applicable ^
9 schools did not report.
K n/a = Not available
114 # = Sample size too small to calculate
FTE = Full Time Equivalent
 Wyoming
Statewide Accountability Information Student Achievement 2002-03
Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System, used for NCLB accountability
See Appendix B for Wyoming’s definitions of proficient for English language arts and mathematics for English or language arts
grades 4, 8, and 11. Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 41% 44% 54%
See https://wdesecure.k12.wy.us/stats/wde.esc.show_menu for more details on the statewide ac- Economically disadvantaged students 27 28 37
countability system. Migrant students <5 50 <5
State assessment for NCLB accountability: Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System Students with disabilities 9 5 9
State student achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, Advanced Students with limited English proficiency 13 11 21
Black, non-Hispanic students 33 20 40
NCLB Accountability Goals Hispanic students 30 27 37
2001-02 Annual measurable Target White, non-Hispanic students 43 48 57
objective starting point (2002-03) Student achievement trend: English or language arts percent proficient level or above
Grade 4 English language arts 30.4% 30.4% 100%
Mathematics 23.8 23.8 2003
Grade 8 English language arts 34.5 34.5 75% 2002
Mathematics 25.3 25.3 54 n/a 2001
44 41 47
Grade 11 English language arts 30.4 48.4 50% 38 44
Mathematics 35.8 35.8
25%
2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
Made AYP 151 (88%) 302 (86%) 27 (56%)
Identified for improvement: Mathematics
Year 1 20 (12%) 55 (14%) 21 (44%) Proficient level or above for: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11
All students 37% 35% 44%
Year 2 0 0 0
Economically disadvantaged students 26 18 29
Corrective action 0 0 0 Migrant students 22 13 <5
Restructuring 0 0 0 Students with disabilities 16 <5 7
Exited improvement status (made AYP twice n/a n/a n/a Students with limited English proficiency 12 6 13
after missing twice or more, includes total Black, non-Hispanic students 21 17 24
“made” above) Hispanic students 25 19 24
White, non-Hispanic students 40 38 46
Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome
Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above
Elementary/middle indicator: Reading performance Reduce percentage of students Met
scoring in lowest (novice) level
100% 2003
High school indicator: Graduation rate Meet or progress toward 80%. Met
NCLB choice participation Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students 75% 2002
n/a 2001
Title I school choice: 0 0
50% 43 37 41 44
Supplemental educational services: 0 0 33 35
25%
*Some AYP outcomes for this state are not available due to issues with data collection, measurement,
or other reasons. For more information please visit the state’s Web site, above. 0%
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11

115
116
Appendix A: Sources
Districts and schools Survey. 1993-94 data has been adjusted for inflation to 2001-02 rates. All numbers are
expressed in thousands.
Number of districts
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Per pupil expenditures
Core of Data, 1993-94 and 2002-03. Source: Cohen, C., and Johnson, F. (2004). Revenues and Expenditures for Public
Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02 (NCES 2004-341).
Notes: Common Core of Data is referred to as CCD throughout report. This total reflects all
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.
regular local school districts that are not a component of a supervisory union, with a student
Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004341.pdf.
membership (enrollment) greater than zero. Not included are supervisory union administra-
tive centers, regional education service agencies, state or federal agencies providing elemen- Note: National Center for Education Statistics is referred to as NCES throughout report.
tary and/or secondary level instruction, or other education agencies, such as charter schools. Expenditures include current expenditures, based on membership, covering day-to-day op-
The data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004. erations of public elementary and secondary schools, except those associated with repaying
debts, capital outlays (e.g., purchases of land, school construction and repair, and equip-
Number of public schools ment), and programs outside the scope of preschool to grade 12, such as adult education,
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common community colleges, and community services. Expenditures for items lasting more than one
Core of Data, 1993-94 and 2002-03. year (e.g., school buses and computers) are not included in current expenditures.
Notes: All regular and special education schools offering free, public elementary or second- Sources of funding
ary education with student membership (enrollment) greater than zero are included. A
Source: Cohen, C., and Johnson, F. (2004). Revenues and Expenditures for Public
school is classified as combined if it provides instruction at both the elementary (grade 6 or
Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02 (NCES 2004-341).
below) and the secondary (grade 9 or above) levels. The data was downloaded from CCD in
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.
July 2004.
Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004341.pdf.
Number of charter schools
Title I allocation 2001-02
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Source: U. S. Department of Education, Budget Office, Funds for State Formula-Allocat-
Core of Data, 2002-03.
ed and Selected Student Aid Programs, 2002. Available http://www.ed.gov/about/
Notes: This reflects all charter schools with a student membership (enrollment) greater than overview/budget/statetables/06stbystate.pdf.
zero. These numbers may not match the number of charter schools listed on state Web sites
due to differences in data collection. The data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004. Note: This total includes only Title I, Part A, ESEA Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies.

Finances Public school enrollment

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Total current expenditures
Core of Data, 1993-94 and 2002-03.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Revenues
Notes: These numbers do not include ungraded students. The data was downloaded from
and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education: school year
CCD in July 2004.
1993-94. Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96303.pdf.
Cohen, C., and Johnson, F. (2004). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary Race and ethnicity
and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02 (NCES 2004-341). U.S. Department Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. Available http:// Core of Data, 1993–94 and 2002-03.
nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004341.pdf.
Note: The data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004.
Note: This reflects data reported to the U. S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), National Public Education Financial

117
 Students with disabilities Number of schools, by percent of students eligible for the Free or Re-
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2002-03 school duced-Price Lunch Program
year. Available: http://www.ideadata.org/tables26th/ar_aa10.xls. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
U.S. Department of Education. To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of Core of Data, 2002-03.
All Children with Disabilities. Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the Notes: The figures shown represent the percentage of students in all schools, including all
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1995. regular local school districts and schools with a specific vocational and alternative education
Notes: Office of Special Education Programs is referred to as OSEP throughout report. The purpose, eligible to participate in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program under the Na-
figures shown represent children ages 6 to 17 served under IDEA, Part B. tional School Lunch Act. The National School Lunch Program is run by the Department of
Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service. The data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004.
Students with limited English proficiency
Number of Full Time equivalent (FTE) teachers
Source: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs, State-specific numbers and statistics. Washington, D.C. Available: Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/stats. Core of Data, 1993-94 and 2002-03.
U.S. Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 1993-94. Notes: FTE teacher counts are based on NCES definitions in the Digest of Education Sta-
tistics. A school is classified as combined if it provides instruction at both the elementary
Notes: Data reflects the number of LEP students enrolled in public schools.
(grade 6 or below) and the secondary (grade 9 or above) levels. The data was downloaded
Migratory students from CCD in June 2005.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 1993-94, 2002-03. Number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) non-teacher staff
Notes: Office of Migrant Education is referred to as OME throughout report. The figures Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
shown represent the “12-month” count of students identified for the Migrant program. The Core of Data, 1993-94 and 2002-03.
12-month count is the unduplicated number of eligible children ages 3-21 who partici-
Notes: FTE teacher counts are based on NCES definitions in the Digest of Education
pate in either a regular year (Category 1) or summer (Category 2) program. The data was
Statistics. Administrators includes both LEA and school administrators. Other includes
obtained from OME in March 2005.
library support staff, LEA administrative support staff, school administrative support staff, and
Eighth-grade student enrolled in Algebra I for high school credit all other support staff, guidance counselors, librarians, and student support services staff. The
data was downloaded from CCD in June 2005.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996 and 2003. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nation- Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades
sreportcard. 7-12
Note: The data was downloaded from NCES in June 2005. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools
Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Pro- and Staffing Survey, 1994 and 2000.
gram, 2002-03 Notes: Schools and Staffing Survey is referred to as SASS throughout report. The data
was downloaded from SASS in May 2004.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Core of Data, 2002-03. Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers, 2002-03
Note: The data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report for State
Formula Grant Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, OMB Number: 1810-0614, Sec-
tion IV, Highly Qualified Teachers. Washington, D.C., 2004. Please note that the data also

118

incorporates edits from state departments of education, which may or may not be reflected The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003. U.S. Department of Education,
in the state’s Consolidated State Performance Report submitted to the U.S. Department of National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003.
Education. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Application for State Grants under Title Notes: The National Assessment of Educational Progress is referred to as NAEP through-
IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law out report. Data reported for public schools only. Some states did not satisfy one of the
107-110), Section 3(a). Washington, D.C., 2003. guidelines for school sample participation rates. Puerto Rico did not participate in these
assessments. See Appendix C for further information and definitions of proficient and basic.
Notes: Within the guidelines put forth within the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
Prior to 1996, accommodations were not permitted for students with disabilities so caution
Section 9101(23) of ESEA, each state defines how teachers are classified as highly quali-
should be used when comparing results. Data for 1994 (reading) and 1996 (mathematics)
fied.
NAEP are given for the purpose of trend analyses, as these years are closest to the 1993-94
High school dropout rate baseline used for the remainder of the report.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Statewide Accountability Information
Core of Data, 1993-94, 2000-01.
Source: Results from an unpublished 50-state survey conducted by CCSSO in July 2005. Rolf
Notes: Only states whose definitions complied with NCES’s definition were included. Annual Blank et al. For more information, visit the states’ Web page or contact the author at: rolfb@
or “event” rate is the percentage of 9-12 students dropping out during one school year. The ccsso.org.
data was downloaded from CCD in July 2004.
NCLB Accountability Goals
Averaged freshman graduation rate
Source: Council of Chief State School Officers, Accountability Profiles. 2005. Available:
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common http://accountability.ccsso.org, with edits by states.
Core of Data, 1993-94, 1994-95, 2000-01, and 2001-02, based on calculations published
in Seastrom, M., Hoffman, L., Chapman, C., and Stillwell, R. (2005). The Averaged Fresh- 2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school year
man Graduation Rate for Public High Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Years Source: U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report for State
2001-02 and 2002-03 (NCES 2006-601). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Formula Grant Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as
National Center for Education Statistics. Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, OMB Number: 1810-0614, Section
II, Schools in Need of Improvement. Washington, D.C., 2004. Please note that the data also
Postsecondary enrollment incorporates edits from state departments of education, which may or may not be reflected
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common in the state’s Consolidated State Performance Report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Core of Data, Private School Universe Survey, 1993; and Integrated Postsecondary Education Education.
Data System (IPEDS) Fall Enrollment, 1994, Survey.
Other indicator, 2002-03
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of
Source: Council of Chief State School Officers, Accountability Profiles. 2005. Available:
Data survey (Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, table 104); Private School Universe Survey,
http://accountability.ccsso.org, with edits by states.
1999 (Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, table 63); and Integrated Postsecondary Educa-
tion Data System (IPEDS) Fall Enrollment, 2000, Survey (Digest of Education Statistics, NCLB choice participation
2002, table 204).
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report for State
NAEP State Results Formula Grant Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, OMB Number: 1810-0614, Section
Source: The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003. U.S. Department
III, School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services. Washington, D.C., 2004. Please
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational
note that the data also incorporates edits from state departments of education, which may
Progress, 2003. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004451.pdf.

119
 or may not be reflected in the state’s Consolidated State Performance Report submitted to
the U.S. Department of Education.
Student Achievement 2002-03
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report for State
Formula Grant Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, OMB Number: 1810-0614, Section
I, Student Academic Achievement. Washington, D.C., 2004. Please note that the data also
incorporates edits from state departments of education, which may or may not be reflected
in the state’s Consolidated State Performance Report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education.
Notes: Trend results for 2000-01 through 2002-03 reported in bar graphs for states with
consistent tests and proficiency levels over two or more years and in Table 4 on page xvi.

120
Appendix B: State definitions of proficient*
Alabama below-grade-level textbooks and other materials. They can generally determine the main
Not available. idea, have an adequate understanding of the author’s purpose and are able to make some
judgments about a test’s quality and themes.
Alaska
Reading: A student who scores at the proficient level based on the scale scores, established Mathematics: Proficient: Students who score at this level demonstrate adequately developed
in state regulation, in reading combined with writing or language arts. conceptual understanding and computational skills, and adequately developed problem-
solving skills.
Mathematics: A student who scores at the proficient level based on the scale scores estab-
lished in state regulation. Delaware
Arizona Meets Standard: The performance levels for reading, writing and math at grades 3, 5, 8,
Meets Standard: This level denotes demonstration of solid academic performance on and 10 and science and social studies grades 4, 6, 8 and 11 were set through a standard
challenging subject matter reflected by the content standards. This includes knowledge of setting process detailed in the Report and Recommendations to the Delaware State
subject matter, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and content relevant Board of Education for Establishing Proficiency Levels for the Delaware Student
analytical skills. Attainment of at least this level is the expectation for all Arizona students Testing Program in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, August 1999. The DSTP
scale scores for reading and math are reported on a developmental scale ranging from 150
Arkansas to 800. The determination of the DSTP scale scores for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 has been done
Proficient: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested using a procedure that involves linking to the Stanford Achievement Test, version 9, (Stan-
and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas’s established ford 9) scores for reading and math. The DSTP in reading and math contains a portion of
reading and writing or mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete the Stanford 9. The scaling for grades 4, 6, and 7 is parallel to that at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10.
tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are Determination of five levels of performance for reading and math at grades 4, 6, and 7 will
connected. be done using a statistical model. For writing, raw scores are used to determine performance
levels at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 and the performance levels at grades 4, 6, and 7 can easily
California replicate those at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10.
Proficient: In reading-language arts and mathematics in grades 2-8 would be based on the
percentage of students scoring at the proficient or advanced level on the California Stan- District of Columbia
dards Tests (CSTs). These tests assess how well students are mastering the state’s rigorous Proficient: Percentage that scored at or above the state proficiency standard. Students who
academic content standards, which lay out what students should know and be able to do at are not tested are included in this computation as being not proficient.
each grade level.
Florida
At the high school level, the definition of “proficient” in reading and math would be tied Level 4: Performance at this level indicates that the student has success with the challenging
to scores on the California High School Exit Exam, which is a pass/fail test. “Cut scores” for content of the Sunshine State Standards. A Level 4 student answers most of the questions
achieving proficiency at the high school level would be equivalent to achieving proficiency correctly but may have only some success with questions that reflect the most challenging
on the California standards-based tests in reading-language arts and math. content.
Colorado Georgia
Proficient: Students understand directions, recognize author’s point of view, explain reac- Meets Standard: CRCT: Scores from 300-349 indicate “Meets Standard,” which represents
tions, define problems or solutions, make predictions and draw conclusions, differentiate the “Proficient” student achievement level
among printed materials, discriminate among various media, extract information from com-
plex stimulus, identify character’s reactions or motives, identify sequences, support opinions, Hawaii
Meets Proficiency: Assessment results indicate that the student has demonstrated the knowl-
classify familiar vocabulary, and interpret poetry in a concrete manner.
edge and skills required to meet the content standards for this grade. The student is ready to
Connecticut work on higher levels of this content area.
Reading: Proficient: Students who score at this level can comprehend most grade-level or
*Please visit each state’s Web site for additional information.

121
 Idaho Kansas
Proficient: Student demonstrates thorough knowledge and mastery of skills that allows him Proficient: Mastery of core skills is apparent. Knowledge and skills can be applied in most
or her to function independently on all major concepts related to his or her current educa- contexts. Ability to apply learned rules to most situations is evident. Adequate command
tional level. of difficult or challenging content and applications is competently demonstrated. There is
evidence of solid performance.
Illinois
Meets Standards: Student work demonstrates proficient knowledge and skills in the subject. Kentucky
Students effectively apply knowledge and skills to solve problems. Proficient: Proficient as defined in Kentucky has been demonstrated to be a very high stan-
dard for student achievement, especially in comparison to standards typically set by other
Indiana states. In Kentucky, Proficiency requires students to know content beyond basic knowledge
Pass: Solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level
and to apply their knowledge to solve problems. Students performing at the Proficient level
have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter
are able to: * demonstrate broad content knowledge and apply it; * communicate in an ac-
knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills ap-
curate, clear, and organized way with relevant details and evidence; * use appropriate strate-
propriate to the subject matter.
gies to solve problems and make decisions; * demonstrate effective use of critical thinking
Iowa skills.
Grade 4 Reading: Intermediate: Understands some factual information; sometimes can draw
Louisiana
conclusions and make inferences about the motives and feelings of the characters; and is
Basic: These standards have been shown to be high; for example, equipercentile equating of
beginning to be able to identify the main idea, evaluate the style and structure of the text,
the standards has shown that Louisiana’s “Basic” is somewhat more rigorous than NAEP’s
and interpret nonliteral language.
“Basic.” In addition, representatives from Louisiana’s business community and higher educa-
tion have validated the use of “Basic” as the state’s proficiency goal
Grade 4 Mathematics: Intermediate: Is beginning to develop an understanding of most math
concepts and to develop the ability to solve complex word problems, use a variety of estima- Maine
tion methods, and interpret data from graphs and tables. Meets the standard: The student’s work demonstrates consistent accomplishment of content
knowledge, analysis, problem-solving, and communication skills..
Grade 8 Reading: Intermediate: Understands some factual information; sometimes can draw
conclusions; makes inferences about the motives and feelings of characters; and applies
Maryland
Proficient: Achieved the cut score on the assessment, as determined by the state.
what has been read to new situations; and sometimes can identify the main idea, evaluate
the style and structure of the text, and interpret nonliteral language. Massachusetts
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate a solid understanding of challenging subject
Grade 8 Mathematics: Intermediate: Is beginning to develop an understanding of most math matter and solve a wide variety of problems
concepts and to develop the ability to solve complex word problems, use a variety of estima-
tion methods, and interpret data from graphs and tables. Michigan
Proficient: A realistic and rigorous level of achievement indicating proficiency in meeting the
Grade 11 Reading: Intermediate: Understands some factual information; sometimes can needs of students..
make inferences about the characters; identify the main idea, and identifies author viewpoint Minnesota
and style; occasionally can interpret nonliteral language and judge the validity of conclusion. Level 3: A score at or above Level 3 (scale score 1,420-1,499) represents state expectations
for achievement of all students. Students who score at Level 3 are working successfully on
Grade 11 Mathematics: Intermediate: Is beginning to develop the ability to apply a variety of grade-level material. This level corresponds to a “proficient” level of achievement for NCLB.
math concepts and procedures, make inferences about qualitative information, and solve a
variety of novel, quantitative reasoning problems. Mississippi
Mississippi Curriculum Test, Proficient: Students at the proficient level demonstrate solid
academic performance and mastery of the content area knowledge and skills required for

122

success at the next grade. Students who perform at this level are well prepared to begin New Hampshire
work on even more challenging material that is required at the next grade. Grade 3 Reading or Language Arts: Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall
Algebra I and English II Test, Proficient: Students at the proficient level demonstrate solid understanding of the materials they read, hear, and view. They are able to identify main
academic performance and mastery of the knowledge and skills required for success in a ideas and draw conclusions. Their responses show thought and are supported with some de-
more advanced course in the content area. tail. When writing, they communicate competently and are able to adequately develop and
support their ideas. Although they demonstrate a firm grounding in the mechanics of written
Missouri expression, they may make errors in spelling and grammar. However, these do not interfere
Communication Arts: Proficient: In reading, students compare and contrast; interpret and use with a reader’s ability to understand the text.
textual elements; predict; draw inferences and conclusions; determine word meaning; iden-
tify synonyms and antonyms; identify main idea and details. In writing, they use some details Grade 3 Mathematics: Proficient: Students at this level are able to estimate and compute
and organization; write complete sentences; generally follow rules of standard English. solutions to problems and communicate their understanding of mathematics. They can, with
reasonable accuracy, add three-digit whole numbers; subtract any two-digit numbers; and
Grade 4 Mathematics: Proficient: Students communicate math processes; add and subtract multiply whole numbers up to five. They are able to: Demonstrate and understanding of
common fractions and decimals (money only); use standard units of measurement; identify place value as well as the relationship between simple fractions and decimals; read charts
attributes of planes and solid figures; create and interpret data from graphs; recognize, and graphs; make measurements; and recognize and extend patterns.
extend, and describe pictorial or numeric patterns; apply strategies to solve multi-step and
logic problems. Grade 6 Reading or Language Arts: Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall
understanding of literacy, narrative, factual, informational, and practical works. They extract
Grade 8 Mathematics: Proficient: Students communicate math processes; recognize main ideas, analyze text, evaluate and organize information, draw conclusions, and make
transformations; solve problems using units of measurement; interpret data from multiple inferences and interpretations. They critically evaluate materials they read, hear, and view.
representations; extend and describe patterns and relationships using algebraic expressions; They effectively organize, develop, and support ideas so that a reader can easily understand
develop and apply number theory concepts; use inductive and deductive reasoning to solve the intent of their writing. They demonstrate a firm grounding in the mechanics of written
problems. expression; however, they may still make some errors.
Grade 10 Mathematics: Proficient: Students communicate math processes; usually analyze
and evaluate information; estimate; recognize reasonableness; identify needed informa- Grade 6 Mathematics: Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall understand-
tion; make predictions; find probability; identify various representations of data; represent ing of mathematical concepts and skills. They make few, if any, errors in computation. They
situations algebraically; apply properties of real numbers; use multiple strategies to solve use tables and graphs to organize, present, and interpret data. They employ appropriate
problems. strategies to solve a wide range of problems. They clearly communicate their solutions and
Montana problem-solving strategies.
Proficient: A student demonstrates competency including subject matter knowledge, the ap-
plication of subject knowledge to real world situations, and the analytical skills appropriate Grade 10 Reading or Language Arts: Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate a solid
to this subject. understanding of a wide range of literary, narrative, factual, informational, and practical
works. They make meaningful connections between and among ideas and concepts in
Nebraska materials they read, hear, and view. They evaluate and organize information, make and com-
Proficient: In the STARS (School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System) as- municate informed judgments, and provide evidence for inferences and interpretations. Their
sessment system, student performance achievement levels are determined for each class- writing is clear, logical, and shows evidence of fluency and style. They effectively control the
room assessment according to criteria established under the quality indicators. This process mechanics of language including spelling, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation.
must be conducted in a technically appropriate manner and is reviewed by the external
assessment reviewers. Grade 10 Mathematics: Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate a solid understand-
Nevada ing of mathematical concepts and skills. Their work displays a high degree of accuracy. They
Not available. make meaningful connections among important concepts in algebra, geometry, measure-

123
 ment, and probability and statistics. They identify and use appropriate information to solve Puerto Rico
problems. They provide supporting evidence for inferences and solutions. They communicate Not available.
mathematical ideas effectively, with sufficient substance and detail to convey understanding.
Rhode Island
New Jersey Achieved Standard: Students demonstrate the ability to apply concepts and processes ef-
Proficient: Proficient means a score achieved by a student at or above the cut score which fectively and accurately. Students communicate ideas in clear and effective ways.
demarks a solid understanding of the math content measured by an individual section on
any state assessment South Carolina
Proficient: Proficient: A student who performs at the proficient level on the PACT has met
New Mexico expectations for student performance based on the curriculum standards approved by the
Not available. state board of education. The student is well prepared for work at the next grade. The profi-
cient level represents the long-term goal for student performance in South Carolina.
New York
Proficiency: The state has defined proficiency as the performance of a student who scores South Dakota
Level 3 on the grade 4 or 8 English language arts assessment, shows Level 3 growth on the Not available.
NYSESLAT, scores between 65 and 84 on a Regents examination, or passes an approved
alternative to a Regents examination Tennessee
Proficient: Student performs at or above the cut scores set by the state.
North Carolina
Level III: Students performing at this level consistently demonstrate mastery of grade level Texas
subject matter and course subject matter and skills and are well prepared for the next grade Met the Standard: Student performed at a level that was at or somewhat above the state
or course level work. passing standard. Performance showed a sufficient understanding of the knowledge and
skills tested at grade level.
North Dakota
Proficient: The definition of proficiency was established in narrative form by the state content Utah
and achievement standards drafting committees in 1999. These narratives guided the state Sufficient: A student scoring at this level is proficient on the measured standards and objec-
standards-setting committees who established the state’s achievement cut-scores for the tives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student’s performance indicates sufficient
North Dakota State Assessment in 2001-02. The standards-setting committees drafted sup- understanding and application of key curriculum concepts
porting narrative that aligned to the final cut-scores and became the operative definition for Vermont
all reports. Meets Standard: English or Language Arts:
Ohio (1) Reading: Basic Understanding: Students must demonstrate the ability to comprehend a
Not available. variety of materials of varying length and complexity.
(2) Reading: Analysis and Interpretation: Students must demonstrate the ability to analyze
Oklahoma and interpret what they read in the process of becoming critical readers.
Not available. (3) Writing Effectiveness: Students must demonstrate the ability to write effectively in a
variety of formats for a variety of purposes, audiences, and contexts.
Oregon
(4) Writing Conventions: Students must demonstrate control of the conventions (usage,
Meets Standard: Specific cut score on state multiple-choice math test plus specific cut score
spelling and punctuation) of the English language according to current standards of correct-
(composite of five trait scores) on math problem solving assessment.
ness.
Pennsylvania Meets Standards: Mathematics:
Proficient: Satisfactory academic performance. Proficient work indicates a solid understand- (1) Concepts: Showing that the student understands mathematical processes and ideas.
ing and adequate display of the skills included in the Pennsylvania Academic Content (2) Skills: Showing that the student can perform the mathematical routine or technique cor-
Standards. rectly.

124

(3) Problem Solving: Showing that the student can choose and apply appropriate skills and
concepts, and reason mathematically. Students solve increasingly complex situations by
formulating, implementing and drawing conclusions from the problem solution.
Virginia
Pass/Proficient: Students who attain a scaled score of 399 or below on any of the Standards
of Learning tests receive a rating of “fails/does not meet the standards.” Those with a scaled
score of 400 to 499 receive a rating of “pass/proficient”, and those with a scaled sc ore of
500 to 600 receive a rating of “pass/advanced.”
Washington
Meet the Standard: Students performing at this level demonstrate mastery of the Essential
Academic Learning Requirements for the subject and grade level.
West Virginia
Mastery: Student demonstrates knowledge, comprehension, and application of skills, which
meet the standard.
Wisconsin
Proficient: Demonstrates competency in the academic knowledge and skills tested
Wyoming
Students at the proficient level use concepts and skills to acquire, analyze, and communicate
information and ideas.

125
126
Appendix C
National Assessment for Educational Progress—Definitions and Further Information*
Mathematics Achievement Levels—Grade 4 functions. Students at this level are expected to have a thorough understanding of Basic
level arithmetic operations—an understanding sufficient for problem solving in practi-
Basic Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should show some evidence of
cal situations. Quantity and spatial relations in problem solving and reasoning should be
understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content strands.
familiar to them, and they should be able to convey underlying reasoning skills beyond the
Fourth-graders performing at the Basic level should be able to estimate and use basic facts
level of arithmetic. They should be able to compare and contrast mathematical ideas and
to perform simple computations with whole numbers; show some understanding of frac-
generate their own examples. These students should make inferences from data and graphs;
tions and decimals; and solve some simple real-world problems in all NAEP content areas.
apply properties of informal geometry; and accurately use the tools of technology. Students
Students at this level should be able to use—though not always accurately—four-function
at this level should understand the process of gathering and organizing data and be able to
calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written responses are often minimal and
calculate, evaluate, and communicate results within the domain of statistics and probability.
presented without supporting information.
Proficient Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should consistently apply Reading Achievement Levels—Grade 4
integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to problem solving in the Basic Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an un-
five NAEP content strands. Fourth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able derstanding of the overall meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for
to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. fourth-graders, they should be able to make relatively obvious connections between the text
They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve and their own experiences, and extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences.
real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers, and
Proficient Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to dem-
geometric shapes appropriately. Students performing at the Proficient level should employ
onstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal informa-
problem-solving strategies such as identifying and using appropriate information. Their
tion. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas
written solutions should be organized and presented both with supporting information and
in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own
explanations of how they were achieved.
experiences. The connection between the text and what the student infers should be clear.
Mathematics Achievement Levels—Grade 8
Reading Achievement Levels—Grade 8
Basic Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of
Basic Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate a literal un-
conceptual and procedural understanding in the five NAEP content strands. This level of
derstanding of what they read and be able to make some interpretations. When reading text
performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic operations—including estimation—on
appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to identify specific aspects of the text that
whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents. Eighth-graders performing at the Basic
reflect overall meaning, extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences, recognize
level should complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as dia-
and relate interpretations and connections among ideas in the text to personal experience,
grams, charts, and graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content strands
and draw conclusions based on the text.
through the appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including
calculators, computers, and geometric shapes. Students at this level also should be able to Proficient Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show
use fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving. As they ap- an overall understanding of the text, including inferential as well as literal information.
proach the Proficient level, students at the basic level should be able to determine which of When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in
the available data are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem the text by making clear inferences from it, by drawing conclusions, and by making connec-
solving. However, these eighth-graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically. tions to their own experiences—including other reading experiences. Proficient eighth-grad-
ers should be able to identify some of the devices authors use in composing text.
Proficient Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should apply mathemati-
cal concepts and procedures consistently to complex problems in the five NAEP content
strands. Eighth-graders performing at the Proficient level should be able to conjecture,
defend their ideas, and give supporting examples. They should understand the connections
between fractions, percents, decimals, and other mathematical topics such as algebra and

*Additional information is available at the NAEP Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.

127
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov